Labour resignations

[apbremer]

Laughing so much it hurts. Shouldn't be allowed.

[Otta]

Bless you, you're really not getting the responses you're clearly desperate for are you?

Maybe you could do an online trolling course or something.

[Loz]

Apparently Theresa May's birthday is next week. She must be pleased that Labour have just given her the next election.

[Vick]

Owen Smith wasn't going to win the election either.

[Sue]

Vick Wrote:

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

> Owen Smith wasn't going to win the election

> either.

Exactly. The charisma of a damp dishcloth and precious few original thoughts of his own, judging by what I saw of him.

And Labour prior to Jeremy Corbyn's leadership was not exactly winning over the electorate either, was it? So I really fail to see how it could win a future election with more of the same.

It is not edifying to see people like Blair, who caused voters to stop voting Labour in droves, rushing in to help crush Corbyn.

I'm pleased and relieved that Corbyn now has an even bigger mandate, despite the disgusting tactics used by his own party to prevent thousands of people from voting because they thought those voters would vote for him.

Labour was becoming a wishy washy version of the Tory party. I and many people I know voted Labour in recent years through gritted teeth, not because we thought they were going to be good for this country but in order to try to keep out the worse alternative. Others gave up altogether and for example voted Green.

Of course Corbyn has faults and has made mistakes. Not bloody surprising given the circumstances of his election, his lack of front bench experience, and the immediate and continuing hostility of both many of his own colleagues (as confirmed by Andy Burnham, and starting before he had even had a chance to get to grips with the job)and the bias of virtually all the mainstream media.

I think most people would just have crumbled completely in the face of that.

This is far from a perfect situation. However I think it's the best shot we have at the moment of moving towards a fairer and more caring society.

It will take more time than it should have - much more time - because of the loss of so many Labour voters over the past years who did not see Labour as in any way standing up for them any more.

Labour lost its way. It has a chance now of finding its way back. There is huge grassroots support for Corbyn, including many young people, and it is from those people that future MPs and party leaders will come. Corbyn is the catalyst which has enabled and is enabling that to happen.

I cannot see the party continuing in its present form in the long term (or possibly even the short term). The opponents of Corbyn need to find some other home if they still cannot rally behind a leader who despite their best efforts has now been democratically elected twice.

It is they who are wrecking Labour's election chances (slim as they were pre-Corbyn), and the constant media bias, not Jeremy Corbyn.

[Seabag]

In cycling terms Jez and his supporters are much like the recumbent bicyclists you see around town. They're fascinating and they're utterly convinced that recumbents are the way to do it.

And I admit, riding one is fun, it makes you smile, but in reality you look and feel like an odd bod, and die-hards to the two wheeled cause like that.

But in real terms, much like Labour, it's a futile excercise. Traffic and hills all thwart the recumbent, if only England was flat like Holland, if only the realities of political inclines and the speedy requirements of life didn't get in the way, then conceptually it would all be plain sailing.

And even if the whole Labour Party did back Jez, they still would never get elected. Much like imagining that Team Sky might turn out at The Tour de France on the lay-down style bicycle. Interesting,for sure, but utterly hopeless.

[Sue]

Seabag Wrote:

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

>

> And even if the whole Labour Party did back Jez,

> they still would never get elected.

I think you are wrong, but we will see.

I think a lot of people want decency and honesty in politics and politicians, instead of self-serving spin and lies.

What I see presently is politicians working together with their rich cronies in business and the media, not to mention arms dealers etc, to enhance the lives of their own kind whilst making sure the plebs stay in their place.

I think people are beginning to catch on to this.

"I want you to know I can see through your masks" - Dylan.

ETA: I like your cycling analogy though, Seabag! I

[Loz]

Sue Wrote:

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

> Vick Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Owen Smith wasn't going to win the election either.

>

>

> Exactly. The charisma of a damp dishcloth and precious few original thoughts of his own, judging

> by what I saw of him.

That is undoubtedly true. I always considered Smith as a stalking horse - just there to get rid of Corbyn before the real alternative leaders came forward. Eagle was exactly the same.

The only thing in Corbyn favour is that the world is basically nuts at the moment. Extremism seems to be in. Brexit and Trump are showing that sensible voting isn't in vogue at the moment. Maybe he does have a chance in 2020.

[Otta]

Sue Wrote:

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

>

> I think a lot of people want decency and honesty

> in politics and politicians, instead of

> self-serving spin and lies.

>

so why are they voting for Corbyn and McDonnell?

Both have proven that they lack decency when it comes to it.

And they use as much spin as anyone else, it's just that their version involves telling everyone that they don't.

I am really really torn about staying in the party, and I am bloody fed up with comments like "it's either Corbyn or various shades of tory" (as was said to me on social media earlier). That attitude shows a complete contempt for discussion or debate. Our way or the highway seems to be the Momentum way.

[Jeremy]

By all means back Corbyn if you like his policies, but I see nothing to indicate that he is fundamentally more honest/decent than other politicians.

A few of my friends are very pro-Corbyn... they seem to be in complete denial about the prospects of winning an election. They think a couple of hundred thousand very vocal supporters, plus a few very worthy/sanctimonious types on social media equates to widespread support.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Regardless of your view of Corbyn, people labelling him an 'extremist' is ridiculous.

[TheCat]

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> By all means back Corbyn if you like his policies,

> but I see nothing to indicate that he is

> fundamentally more honest/decent than other

> politicians.

>

> A few of my friends are very pro-Corbyn... they

> seem to be in complete denial about the prospects

> of winning an election. They think a couple of

> hundred thousand very vocal supporters, plus a few

> very worthy/sanctimonious types on social media

> equates to widespread support.

Agree with this completely, have a number of friends of similar disposition. As I keep telling them...'tweets are not the same as votes, shouting loud is not the same as votes, and joining a political party does not make ones vote any more important than the majority who haven't'

[????]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> Regardless of your view of Corbyn, people

> labelling him an 'extremist' is ridiculous.

I think his contempt/disregard for Parliamentary in favour odf 'direct democracy' (i.e. mob rule of a noisy minority) is actually quite extremist - he's hard left with good manners whilst his cabal do all the nasty work. I am far from convinced of his 'decency' and always have been - certainly he surrounds himself with some pretty unpleasant 'comrades' and shares platforms or talk on the media of some very unpleasant organisations and regimes. The ends,of course, justify the means for all extremists and ideologues so lying, duplicity, intimidation, propaganda, all legitimate tools on the path to a socialist utopia.

I think he's a bit of a tosser.

[TheCat]

it also winds me up every time I hear that Corbyn has a 'mandate'.....in my view he has nothing of the sort from the electorate. He has one from 300k labour members, but what of the 'mandate' given to 172MP's who were voted in by the electorate? I don't recall the electorate giving a 'mandate' to Jeremy Corbyn. This is particularly galling, when usually these same people claim that Theresa May has no 'mandate' because nobody voted for her as pm.

But I guess hypocrisy has never really been an issue for the idealistic hard left.....

[DaveR]

I disagree with Corbyn about literally everything, but you can't really argue that he doesn't have a mandate from the membership of the Labour Party to lead it. If MPs don't like it they should step down and fight their seat as an independent or under another party banner - that's what Galloway et al had to do. The party has done itself no favours by trying to change the rules because they don't like where they have ended up.

Like I said before, Labour under Corbyn is realistically not going to pick up many votes from Tories or Ukippers, so he's going to stand or fall on his ability to get new voters out. Nobody's managed it before, and the odds are surely against it, but he's won the right to have a go.

And tbh I don't care whether he's a decent guy or not (and he has a record as a sympathiser with some of the worst regimes and groups in the world) - he's wrong about everything, foreign and domestic, and completely unfit to hold any kind of public office, so decency doesn't really make it on to the score sheet.

[rendelharris]

TheCat Wrote:

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

> it also winds me up every time I hear that Corbyn

> has a 'mandate'.....in my view he has nothing of

> the sort. He has one from 300k labour members, but

> what of the 'mandate' given to 172MP's who were

> voted in by the electorate? I don't recall the

> electorate giving a 'mandate' to Jeremy Corbyn.

The leader of the Labour party isn't elected by Labour MPs, so they just don't come into it. By the rules of the Labour party Corbyn has a mandate to be leader of the Labour party, to try and shoehorn in questions about MPs is pure quibbling. Theresa May was voted leader of the Conservative party by Conservative party members, not the party's MPs, does that mean she doesn't have a mandate? How many people who voted Tory in 2015 were voting for her to be PM a year later? I don't recall the electorate giving her a "mandate." It's fine not to like Corbyn or indeed the Labour party, but by the rules which govern all main parties he's been elected leader twice, fair and square - parties elect their leaders then the electorate vote for them, to say a leader who has yet to contest a general election doesn't have a mandate to lead his party because the electorate haven't had a say is ridiculous.

[TheCat]

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> TheCat Wrote:

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

> -----

> > it also winds me up every time I hear that

> Corbyn

> > has a 'mandate'.....in my view he has nothing

> of

> > the sort. He has one from 300k labour members,

> but

> > what of the 'mandate' given to 172MP's who were

> > voted in by the electorate? I don't recall the

> > electorate giving a 'mandate' to Jeremy Corbyn.

>

> The leader of the Labour party isn't elected by

> Labour MPs, so they just don't come into it. By

> the rules of the Labour party Corbyn has a mandate

> to be leader of the Labour party, to try and

> shoehorn in questions about MPs is pure quibbling.

> Theresa May was voted leader of the Conservative

> party by Conservative party members, not the

> party's MPs, does that mean she doesn't have a

> mandate? How many people who voted Tory in 2015

> were voting for her to be PM a year later? I

> don't recall the electorate giving her a

> "mandate." It's fine not to like Corbyn or indeed

> the Labour party, but by the rules which govern

> all main parties he's been elected leader twice,

> fair and square - parties elect their leaders then

> the electorate vote for them, to say a leader who

> has yet to contest a general election doesn't have

> a mandate to lead his party because the electorate

> haven't had a say is ridiculous.

I understand the machinations perfectly well thanks. My issue is with the hypocrisy (the sentence on which you've chosen to selectively remove when quoting my message). Theresa May has been elected leader fair and square also, by the party members.

[Blah Blah]

May was not elected by party members. It never went to a second round election, because Leasedom stepped down. In the first round of Tory party elections, it is the MP's who vote, to narrow it down to two. Only then do the membership have a say. So May is were she is, chosend by a few hundred Tory MPs. No public mandate whasoever in ANY form.

Before Miliband, Labour selected it's leaders in the following way. One third of the vote from MPs, One third from Affiliates (unions), one third from Members. It is only since Miliband that one member one vote has existed. Given that those changes were endorsed by both conference and the then NEC, it's a bit rich for those same people to now be calling for a return to the college system because they don't like what the changes they endorsed have delivered.

[Jenny1]

To focus on the rules and processes for selecting the Labour leader risks ignoring the overarching political issues for the party and the country.

As has been pointed out above the current 'battle for the soul of the Labour Party' is between those who want the party to be radically left wing and those who want it to be centrist. The former are quite happy not to be in government and the latter aren't.

At root I don't really care what happens to any political party (let alone any party leader) - I care about what happens to people and to the country. I've voted Labour, Lib Dem and Green during the 32 years I've been allowed to vote. I'm not 'virulently' anti-Tory, but I've never lived under a Tory government whose policies I could approve. I don't belong to any party - but I do care about social justice. It's going to be very easy for me - and the many floating voters like me - to simply vote Green or Lib Dem now. I do feel a bit sad for the Labour party - I think Labour governments have done more than any other for this country during the course of my life - but as I say it's not really parties that matter - it's the well-being of the population as a whole.

[rendelharris]

TheCat Wrote:

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

> I understand the machinations perfectly well

> thanks. My issue is with the hypocrisy (the

> sentence on which you've chosen to selectively

> remove when quoting my message). Theresa May has

> been elected leader fair and square also, by the

> party members.

So Corbyn and his supporters are hypocrites to claim a mandate from the party when elected by party members, but Theresa May is all fair and square when elected by her party members? Bit rich to go on about hypocrisy.

[rendelharris]

Blah Blah Wrote:

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

> May was not elected by party members. It never

> went to a second round election, because Leasedom

> stepped down. In the first round of Tory party

> elections, it is the MP's who vote, to narrow it

> down to two. Only then do the membership have a

> say. So May is were she is, chosend by a few

> hundred Tory MPs. No public mandate whasoever in

> ANY form.

True, my mistake - I thought there had been a token confirmation vote but not even that. So TheCat thinks Corbyn has no mandate when winning a large majority of his party members' support (twice), whereas May has a mandate despite the fact that nobody has ever voted for her in any election! Brilliant.

[*Bob*]

rendelharris Wrote:

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

whereas May has a mandate despite the

> fact that nobody has ever voted for her in any

> election! Brilliant.

And yet despite this she manages to have the support of the majority of her parliamentary party - and were there to be a general election she would win hands-down.

Whereas "Jeremy" has virtually no support in the PLP and were there to be a general election, he would be trounced.

One can talk mandates all day long but the bottom line is still the same.

[rendelharris]

*Bob* Wrote:

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

> rendelharris Wrote:

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

> -----

> whereas May has a mandate despite the

> > fact that nobody has ever voted for her in any

> > election! Brilliant.

>

> And yet despite this she manages to have the

> support of the majority of her parliamentary party

> - and were there to be a general election she

> would win hands-down.

>

> Whereas "Jeremy" has virtually no support in the

> PLP and were there to be a general election, he

> would be trounced.

>

>

> One can talk mandates all day long but the bottom

> line is still the same.

That's all true, I was simply taking issue with TheCat's ludicrous grumble that Corbyn has no mandate.

[*Bob*]

He's got the conch, but a pig's head on a spike isn't too far off.

[Earl Aelfheah]

To say that Corbyn is an extremist is hysterical imo. The most left wing policies he has is to build more social housing and renationalise the railways. There are people on the Conservative benches who would actually support both those things.

You may not like him much, but he has a mandate from the party membership, so presumably reflects their views. The Labour party may not be in step with popular opinion right now. That's OK, people can decide not to vote Labour currently. Personally, I think it's quite good for democracy to have parties that are actually different from each other. Without choices, people end up feeling the whole political system is a stitch up between a homogeneous political and media class. People said they didn't want identikit, populist politicians - well polished and media trained... that they wanted to engage young people, that they wanted there to be a real choice. Well now there is a choice.