Labour resignations

[Loz]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The near-daily accusations of being an anti-semitic supporter of terrorists? Daily

> Telegraph articles headed "Corbyn will be cheered on by terrorists and racists"?

As Henry XVII said... links? (And remember, you said 'near daily', so anything in the last week.)

If you go further back you will find the some stories after Corbyn's naive comments in front of a crowd of Jewish journalists (introducing a report into anti-Semitism in Labour) and his frankly stupid remarks about "our friends" in Hamas and Hezbollah.

As Andrea Leadsom discovered, you can't complain about people reporting stories about things you actually said.

> A bit of a giggle about Dave getting jiggy with a piggy doesn't compare.

Really? I would consider being accused of having oral sex with a dead animal in the national press a pretty damn serious and vile accusation.

Personally, I'd have set lawyers onto Isabel Oakenshott and Michael Ashcroft. Doubly so when Oakenshott admitted later there was no real basis for the story.

[miga]

There's just a bit of exaggeration in this thread. The DC rumour was that he flopped his chop into a dead pig's head. The reason it took root was that people found it believable as a sort of drunk young posh boy lark. The reason it died as anything other than a source of caricature opportunities is that it was just a rumour. JC doesn't get accused of antisemitism in the press every day, though the Hezbollah thing etc. is brought up fairly regularly. He does get accused of extremism fairly regularly, two days ago in the Telegraph there was a piece entitled "JC has turned Labour into a safe haven for violent thugs" which IMHO is a bit much for the employer of BJ who has been recorded giving details of the address of a guy so his mate could go round and beat him up.

There's a spinnable kernel of truth in all of this, it's just how you spin it.

[rendelharris]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> As Henry XVII said... links? (And remember, you

> said 'near daily', so anything in the last week.)

How about this: http://www.thejc.com/comment-and-debate/comment/160166/corbyn%E2%80%99s-comments-chakrabarti-inquiry-were-no-mistake-they-were-a-

Edit - can't seem to link direct to article, look for Robert Philpot's article on July 8th.

> Personally, I'd have set lawyers onto Isabel

> Oakenshott and Michael Ashcroft. Doubly so when

> Oakenshott admitted later there was no real basis

> for the story.

Why didn't he then? Or why doesn't he now he's got time on his hands? And anyway, being accused of silly buggers when at university really does not compare with being called an anti-semite and friend to terrorists now.

[Loz]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Loz Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > As Henry XVII said... links? (And remember, you said 'near daily', so anything in the last week.)

>

> How about this:

> Edit - can't seem to link direct to article, look for Robert Philpot's article on July 8th.

I think you mean this http://www.thejc.com/node/160166

Whilst strongly worded, it is a discussion on comments Corbyn has made. And no more strongly worded than any politician's words get discussed. All politicians get this sort of treatment.

And also, the Jewish Chronicle is a pretty niche publication - I'd have thought that, since they are 'near daily attacks' you could have found something 'vile' in a recent national newspaper. Too hard, eh?

> > Personally, I'd have set lawyers onto Isabel Oakenshott and Michael Ashcroft. Doubly so when

> > Oakenshott admitted later there was no real basis for the story.

> Why didn't he then? Or why doesn't he now he's got time on his hands? And anyway, being accused

> of silly buggers when at university really does not compare with being called an anti-semite and

> friend to terrorists now.

Well, I'd guess he was wary of the Streisand Effect.

Why doesn't Corbyn sue all these people for their 'vile' articles?

[Otta]

Because he's not American?

[????]

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The Canary is every bit as biased as The Sun.

This.

LOL people putting the Canary up as some sort of source of honest journalism....I think it's comparable to the mailonline in terms of quality/objectivity (not politics obviously)

[????]

Anyway, Harris gets it right here IMO...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/15/labour-death-spite-bullying-working-class-base

[Loz]

Anyone else seen Owen Smith list of policies? He looks like he's trying really, really hard to look left-wing. Some of the things are nuts ('focus on equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity', 'wealth tax') and the rest is old-skool tax and spend.

He's trying to look a bit like Corbyn, but without the grass-roots popularity.

[Otta]

I got my voting papers this week, but really don't think I'll bother. Smith may have been Labour a long time, but I just get the impression it's all about him, and that he'd sell his own mother if it got him ahead.

[????]

looked at his (Smiths's)policies - well, Corbyn has certainly dragged Labour back to the left if his opponents are putting forward this kind of crap as policy - bunch of failed economics, wealth creation hating guff and taking union power back to the 70s...I don't care who wins (though it will be Jezza)as long as none of them get near power. Nothing progressive in failed the world over, old school socialism in my view.

PLUS the 'rebels' have made Corby, McD and Sean look competent in comparison, which is some achievement! Useless protest party of outdated ideology. I hope we get some decent alternative to the Tories but Fallon is hardly seizing the moment.

[DaveR]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37125819

Interesting the Corbyn has effectively accepted that he won't appeal to Tory voters, and is hanging his hat on his ability to get out previous non-voters. It's a risky strategy but it's arguable that Smith can't offer anything better.

It raises an interesting question as to how far the Tories can stretch to peel off UKIP voters in both Tory and Labour constituencies and still retain some centrist/liberal appeal. If they are very canny electorally the Labour party is gonna get wiped out.

[titch juicy]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> looked at his (Smiths's)policies - well, Corbyn

> has certainly dragged Labour back to the left if

> his opponents are putting forward this kind of

> crap as policy - bunch of failed economics, wealth

> creation hating guff and taking union power back

> to the 70s...I don't care who wins (though it will

> be Jezza)as long as none of them get near power.

> Nothing progressive in failed the world over, old

> school socialism in my view.

>

> PLUS the 'rebels' have made Corby, McD and Sean

> look competent in comparison, which is some

> achievement! Useless protest party of outdated

> ideology. I hope we get some decent alternative to

> the Tories but Fallon is hardly seizing the

> moment.

I don't know. I think the best thing Fallon and the Lib Dems can do right now is stay out of the headlines. The main party political headlines is a crowded space right now.

If I were them i'd bide my time, see the outcome of the Labour leadership election and then come to the fore with a response to that.

[Otta]

Sorry if this has already been posted, it's from 18th July, but I only saw it yesterday.

For anyone still supporting Jezza I beg you to read this. This woman did her very best to support him, and she was clearly passionate about her work.

Then he just screwed her over and totally failed her.

It's not about his politics, it's about the fact he's an incompetent nitwit.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/07/lilian-greenwood-mp-jeremy-corbyn-continually-undermined-me-job-i-loved

[Otta]

And here is Heidi Alexander.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/19/heidi-alexander-corbyn-resign-shadow-cabinet

Now SHE is exactly the sort of Labour MP I want to see, and Jezza's lot probably want her deselected.

[Blah Blah]

Our ballots are arriving from today and it's quite clear from Heidi's account just how clueless Corbyn is when it comes to running his office. If he can't even keep an opposition cabinet together, how on earth will he ever be able to run a government. There is a LOT of denial amongst Corbyn supporters. Labour is almost certainly heading to electoral defeat under him, but they all seem to think some great revolution is coming in the marginals. I will be voting for Smith, but don't expect him to win.

And yes, Heidi is being attacked on social media. Groups like Momentum are definitely organising to steal the party for themselves, and don't seem to care if it can win an election or not.

[JoeLeg]

Corbyn will win.

Momentum, O'Donnell and of course Corbyn himself will claim a great victory for ordinary members - and they're right of course. Labour Party members are about to get the leader they want. But just as it's often said we get the governments we deserve, so Labour is going to get the leadership it deserves.

I've said it before and I'll say it again; Corbyn is unelectable in a GE, and anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves. I know they fervently believe in a better future, and that we can have a fairer society. So do I. But Corbyn is unable to be an effective leader of an opposition party, and would make a disastrous PM. He's just not up to the job.

He's seen as hard left, which alienates those centrist voters that got Labour elected under Blair. Now people always attack Blair (and I agree there's a lot to reasonably attack), but hey neatly forget that he got Labour elected. I can't see how Corbyn intends to get Labour into power without those votes. Who does he think he's appealing to? In order to win he needs to take votes off other parties. How exactly will he do that?

[Blah Blah]

He speaks to the already converted, that's the problem.

[Loz]

Pissups and breweries spring to mind.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/aug/25/labour-conference-in-peril-g4s-will-not-provide-security

[Otta]

JoeLeg Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Now people always attack Blair (and I agree

> there's a lot to reasonably attack), but hey

> neatly forget that he got Labour elected.

Was chatting to a mate about this the other day. I was saying that a local CLP meeting has the feel of the JPF meetings in Life of Brian.

My friend made the very good point that the "what have the Romans ever done for us" scene could be parodied very well in a "what did Blair's government ever do for us?".

I was never a fan of Blair and never voted for him, but for these muppets to talk like the Blair years were like being governed by a Tory government is just plain bullshit.

[Blah Blah]

Yes, I too am constantly having to remind other party members of all the things New Labour DID do after 16 hard years of the Tories. People are obsessed with Iraq. There is no reasoning with some people either. You have new members joining who aren't interested in party process and call foul if anything they don't like is said about Jeremy Corbyn. In fact, the labour party is far more democratic than they realise. The membership at least get a say in who leads the party. And everything, from branch delegate upwards is decided by those members who take part in those things. I've been a party member for a long time, and I've never seen such fury and bad behaviour by some members. It is mob rule. That's what Jeremy has unleashed from the membership, and he seems unable to do anything about it.

[Loz]

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I've been a party member for a long time, and I've never seen such fury and bad behaviour by

> some members. It is mob rule. That's what Jeremy has unleashed from the membership, and he seems

> unable to do anything about it.

... or unwilling.

[Otta]

Yeah that was what I was going to say. He doesn't want to do anything about it because it's exactly what he's after.

[Blah Blah]

Like many members, I'm now resigned to Labour losing a GE being the only way he will be got rid of. And am hoping the tories call an early GE to save us all from his incompetance. A telling moment was during the (third I think) hustings, when Jeremy again tried to claim credit for forcing the government to U-turn on tax credits and welfare reform etc (like the Lords had nothing to do with that of course). And Owen Smith pointed out how it was he as shadow DWP minister who did all the work, and that Jeremy met with him just once in 9 months.

This is the telling sign of what kind of leader Jeremy is, one who doesn't know what's going on in parliament half the time because he doesn't meet one to one with ministers. He's more interested in speaking to the already converted at rallies than he is in doing the actual work of healing rifts within the party. In other words, he hides. He clearly doesn't lke dealing with people who challenge him. That's why he doesn't do too many media interviews. We've seen his irritation a few times now (and even at members who support Smith challenging him) and in one interview with Evan Davies, he was just wierd, saying 'boo' to Davies at one point. He will be torn apart in the run up to a GE.

[Otta]

Yep, all of that is exactly how I've felt for at least a couple of months now.

I almost feel like I hate his supporters, which is of course ridiculous, as most of them are probably totally decent people. But I just can't understand how anyone can possible believe this muppet stands a chance (or could do a good job if he did somehow pull of a victory - which he won't).

People are just living in social media bubbles. I was totally guilty of that before last year's GE, and I believe I've learned a (hard and horrible) lesson from that.

[Alan Medic]

200.....at last