Jeremy Corbyn - fecked?

[shunkyboy and the fluffer]

I actually thought Starmer was doing a pretty decent job till yesterday. 

[Mox]

They are a shambles of an organisation, led by now by careerists and centrists and their treatement of Corbyn is absolutely heinous. 

[wheres the pies]

Jeremy corbyn is the least racist politician you could ever meet a man of great integrity the right of the party had it in for him from the start 

[Orraloon]

It would appear that nobody in the future will be allowed lead the Labour party unless they are pro Israel. 

[Parklife]

4 hours ago, shunkyboy and the fluffer said:

I actually thought Starmer was doing a pretty decent job till yesterday. 

"Sir" Kier Starmer is a man who should be nowhere near the leadership of the Labour Party. A man who legitimises and supports an unequal society through his acceptance of such a title. A society which is titled against the working class, the people he is there to stand up for, in so many different ways. 

The endless smearing of Corbyn from those in his own party and those in the press has been for many years an utter scandal. Jeremy Corbyn has a track record going back decades of standing up to all forms of racism and under his stewardship labour brought in the toughest anti-racism rules that exist in any UK political party. 

Fuck Kier Starmer and fuck the Labour Party. 

[scotlad]

7 hours ago, shunkyboy and the fluffer said:

I actually thought Starmer was doing a pretty decent job till yesterday. 

I don't know, there was a poll out today that shows they've opened up a 5% lead on the Tories - if that translated into votes in an election it could see them back in government.  Of course, how much of that is down to Starmer and how much is down to Johnson's useless administration is debatable.

I think suspending Corbyn for the statement he made has the potential to create more problems than it solves though.  Yes, its tone could have been better, a bit more statesmanlike and a bit less "see, see, I told you so!", but I can't for the life of me see how it was worthy of a suspension.  A shitey way to treat someone who was a colleague just a few months ago.

Edited October 30, 2020 by scotlad

[Dave78]

Galling what they did to Corbyn. 

 

 

[TDYER63]

19 hours ago, Parklife said:

"Sir" Kier Starmer is a man who should be nowhere near the leadership of the Labour Party. A man who legitimises and supports an unequal society through his acceptance of such a title. A society which is titled against the working class, the people he is there to stand up for, in so many different ways. 

The endless smearing of Corbyn from those in his own party and those in the press has been for many years an utter scandal. Jeremy Corbyn has a track record going back decades of standing up to all forms of racism and under his stewardship labour brought in the toughest anti-racism rules that exist in any UK political party. 

Fuck Kier Starmer and fuck the Labour Party. 

He doesnt like titles but he accepted the knighthood? 🤔

‘’ But Starmer had already chosen to abandon the title during his political career, and had decided not to use it in day-to-day-life prior to election as Labour leader.

He told the Hampstead & Highgate Express, a local newspaper in his north London constituency, that "I've never liked titles.

"When I was DPP, everyone called me director and I said, 'Please don't call me director, call me Keir Starmer.' It's a very similar battle now."

[TDYER63]

On 10/30/2020 at 11:03 AM, shunkyboy and the fluffer said:

I actually thought Starmer was doing a pretty decent job till yesterday. 

I think he is probably gambling on winning more votes from the Tories than he loses from Corbyn supporters by taking this stance. Johnson is a balloon and there will be some centre right voters that may be tempted to move to Labour if it looks like the far left of the party is being eradicated. Big gamble IMO. 

[TDYER63]

15 hours ago, Dave78 said:

Galling what they did to Corbyn. 

 

 

That is brilliant. The guy did really well and was very articulate. 

[aaid]

Of course it completely possible that Jeremy Corbyn was subjected to concerted attacks from inside and outwith the Labour Party from the moment he was elected *and* that he was completely useless as a leader, achieved nothing and set things back.

Both these can be - and IMHO are - true.

Edited October 31, 2020 by aaid

[aaid]

15 hours ago, Dave78 said:

Galling what they did to Corbyn. 

 

 

Yip, because what the left really needs is another posh-boy leftie academic telling them "how it is".

[King Of Paisley]

20 hours ago, Parklife said:

"Sir" Kier Starmer is a man who should be nowhere near the leadership of the Labour Party. A man who legitimises and supports an unequal society through his acceptance of such a title. A society which is titled against the working class, the people he is there to stand up for, in so many different ways. 

The endless smearing of Corbyn from those in his own party and those in the press has been for many years an utter scandal. Jeremy Corbyn has a track record going back decades of standing up to all forms of racism and under his stewardship labour brought in the toughest anti-racism rules that exist in any UK political party. 

Fuck Kier Starmer and fuck the Labour Party. 

The Salmond affair will be a mere sideshow in comparison to the maelstrom that will engulf Liebour over this.

The sooner the Labour Party in its current form, bother up here and UK wide,  dies the all the better. Hopefully in a post Indy Scotland there will be a traditional Labour Party that goes back to its roots and uphold the values Maxton and Keir Hardie held dear.

[Parklife]

On 10/30/2020 at 8:04 PM, Dave78 said:

Galling what they did to Corbyn. 

 

 

Excellent. 

22 hours ago, TDYER63 said:

He doesnt like titles but he accepted the knighthood? 🤔

‘’ But Starmer had already chosen to abandon the title during his political career, and had decided not to use it in day-to-day-life prior to election as Labour leader.

He told the Hampstead & Highgate Express, a local newspaper in his north London constituency, that "I've never liked titles.

"When I was DPP, everyone called me director and I said, 'Please don't call me director, call me Keir Starmer.' It's a very similar battle now."

Yeah. "Don't call me 'sir' please". We'll hand back the fucking knighthood and condemn the whole continued existence of an antiquated honours system. 

22 hours ago, aaid said:

Of course it completely possible that Jeremy Corbyn was subjected to concerted attacks from inside and outwith the Labour Party from the moment he was elected *and* that he was completely useless as a leader, achieved nothing and set things back.

Both these can be - and IMHO are - true.

They can both be true. It can also be true that he was continually undermined by those in his party and the media, who set the news agenda, and that made leading the party to election success nigh-on impossible. 

I cannot remember your posting but were you critical/angered by the near complete media opposition to independence? I doubt many Yes people complaining about that were also "yeah but salmond was completely useless too". 

21 hours ago, King Of Paisley said:

The Salmond affair will be a mere sideshow in comparison to the maelstrom that will engulf Liebour over this.

The sooner the Labour Party in its current form, bother up here and UK wide,  dies the all the better. Hopefully in a post Indy Scotland there will be a traditional Labour Party that goes back to its roots and uphold the values Maxton and Keir Hardie held dear.

Amen. 

[aaid]

1 hour ago, Parklife said:

 

They can both be true. It can also be true that he was continually undermined by those in his party and the media, who set the news agenda, and that made leading the party to election success nigh-on impossible. 

I cannot remember your posting but were you critical/angered by the near complete media opposition to independence? I doubt many Yes people complaining about that were also "yeah but salmond was completely useless too". 

 

Probably because Salmond wasn't useless, to the contrary, he *was* a very skilled and wily political operator and what he achieved from 2007 through to 2014 should not be overlooked nor underestimated.   Turns out he was also a bit "handsy" but no-one knew that at the time.

Any Labour leader - particularly one from the left - is going to face consistent attacks from the UK mainstream media, the same is true of any SNP leader of any stripe.   At least for Labour they do have a few outlets that are generally sympathetic towards them, the SNP has the National and that's just a recent development.   That might not be fair but that's the landscape and you can either cry about it or you can get on with it and a good leader does exactly that, which is what Salmond did and what Sturgeon continues to do.

If you are trying to draw a comparison between Yes falling short in the 2014 referendum and Labour doing similar in the 2017 GE under their respective leaderships, then that's an interesting comparison but I'd take the view that whereas Salmond took Yes from a relatively unpopular position to coming very close to winning and by doing so moved the political centre in Scotland to the point where Yes is now the majority position, in short the work he did up until 2014 laid the foundations for the current position.   In contrast, Corbyn missed an open goal against the worst government for decades - until the current one - and, his narrow loss represented a high water mark for their fortunes.

If you want to draw that analogy then you can't ignore 2017-2019.   It might stand up if Salmond had stayed on as leader and SNP support had waned so that the election wins in 2015 and 2016 didn't happen, but of course that didn't happen as Salmond knew when to depart the scene - pity he seems to have forgotten that but hey-ho.

I think I've been pretty consistent with Corbyn from early on if anyone's interested in checking my posts.  I didn't have any particular problem with his policy agenda, in fact a lot was already being implemented in Scotland and was no where near as radical or left wing as some were making out - if anything it probably should've been more radical.

The problem I had with Corbyn, was and is, that he was just totally useless and showed no leadership qualities whatsoever.  In part that was understandable as he was the archetypal back-bencher but not only did he not grow into the job, if anything he got worse.   If you want to draw a parallel, then bizarrely its not with Salmond but with Trump.    A large part of their appeals - to different sorts of people admittedly - was the same, that both represented something different, they weren't stereotypical polticians.  In both cases though, when political nous and leadership was required they were both found lacking.

I could numerous examples of where Corbyn fell short but I'll focus on two.

First of all, I've no doubt that certain people used anti-semitism as a stick to beat him with from within the party, I actually think he had a point in what he said last week but again misread the room and would probably have been better advised to have said nothing.

That there was - and is - a problem with anti-semitism in the Labour party shouldn't be ignored and he failed to deal with that.   Had he acted straight away and taken firm and decisive action against those responsible - ie, throw them out of the party - then that would have meant that those opponents wouldn't have had that stick.  He should also have dealt with those opponents and laid down a marker early on - most of them ultimately left Labour anyway - as Starmer is doing (time will tell whether that was a smart move or not).

Secondly, and I think this was genuinely a difficult position for him as unlike any other party, his membership and support were split down the middle, his whole constructive ambiguity over Brexit proved to be the disaster that many predicted and ultimately was the primary reason for the Tories winning a landslide in 2019.

When leaders are required to take difficult and unpopular decisions they need to do that quickly and Corbyn never seemed to be able to do that.  

[Orraloon]

5 minutes ago, aaid said:

  Turns out he was also a bit "handsy" but no-one knew that at the time.

 

How did he manage to be a "bit handsy" without anyone knowing? 

Unless he was just handling himself?

"CLEARED OF ALL CHARGES."

 

[Parklife]

4 minutes ago, aaid said:

Turns out he was also a bit "handsy" but no-one knew that at the time.

 

Wow. After all that's come out, that's quite an outlandish thing to be saying. 

4 minutes ago, aaid said:

That there was - and is - a problem with anti-semitism in the Labour party shouldn't be ignored and he failed to deal with that.   

Under his stewardship the toughest anti-racism rules that exist within any political party were brought in. 

He didn't "fail to deal with that". He dealt with it completely proportionately. Other people not acting proportionately reflects on them, not Corbyn. 

My apologies, You've typed reams and I've no interest in getting involved in a discussion in such depth. Which is why I just singled out two parts of what you said. 

[aaid]

1 minute ago, Orraloon said:

How did he manage to be a "bit handsy" without anyone knowing? 

Unless he was just handling himself?

"CLEARED OF ALL CHARGES."

 

I'm talking about what he admitted to himself.

Do you think its acceptable for the FM of Scotland to have a young female civil servant in his bedroom late at night to work on papers "as its cold downstairs" and indulge in "sleepy cuddles"?

Do you think playing with a staff member's hair is acceptable behaviour for anyone in a position of power?

That's just two examples of behavior which was admitted in court.  

It might not be criminal but its certainly not acceptable, IMHO.

[aaid]

6 minutes ago, Parklife said:

Wow. After all that's come out, that's quite an outlandish thing to be saying. 

 

I'm actually quite surprised that you're defending Salmond here.   I'd have thought given your previous posts on the subject of men "overstepping the mark" with women, you'd be the first to condemn him.
 

[Orraloon]

4 minutes ago, aaid said:

I'm talking about what he admitted to himself.

Do you think its acceptable for the FM of Scotland to have a young female civil servant in his bedroom late at night to work on papers "as its cold downstairs" and indulge in "sleepy cuddles"?

Do you think playing with a staff member's hair is acceptable behaviour for anyone in a position of power?

That's just two examples of behavior which was admitted in court.  

It might not be criminal but its certainly not acceptable, IMHO.

But you said no one knew at the time. Did they just "remember" it happening at a convenient time a few years later?

 

[aaid]

1 minute ago, Orraloon said:

But you said no one knew at the time. Did they just "remember" it happening at a convenient time a few years later?

 

I meant publicly - I wondered whether or not to be explicit but thought "no everyone will get what I mean" - that's a lesson for me.

[Parklife]

1 hour ago, aaid said:

I'm actually quite surprised that you're defending Salmond here.   I'd have thought given your previous posts on the subject of men "overstepping the mark" with women, you'd be the first to condemn him.
 

I'm not defending anyone. I'm saying that given the many clearly fabricated accusations that were slung at him, saying what you said is outlandish. 

An inappropriate cuddle is pretty much the sum total of what he's done wrong, yet was on trial for fucking rape and has had his whole reputation and character destroyed. 

[phart]

handsy

/ˈhan(d)zi/

 

adjective

informal

adjective: handsy

1. tending to touch other people, typically in a way that is inappropriate or unwanted.

    

   16 minutes ago, Parklife said:

    

   An inappropriate cuddle is pretty much the sum total of what he's done wrong, yet was on trial for fucking rape and has had his whole reputation and character destroyed. 

   Not sure you guys are miles away from each other if you just isolate this one point. On the whole subject a different matter.

[Parklife]

41 minutes ago, phart said:

handsy

/ˈhan(d)zi/

 

adjective

informal

adjective: handsy

1. tending to touch other people, typically in a way that is inappropriate or unwanted.

    

   Not sure you guys are miles away from each other if you just isolate this one point. On the whole subject a different matter.

Aaid's comment, to me at least, suggested a pattern of behaviour. Not one single inappropriate incident (when both parties had been drinking), for which an apology had been issued and accepted. 

To try and imply someone has a problem with their conduct and character in general based on that one incident is outrageous IMO. 

[phart]

11 minutes ago, Parklife said:

Aaid's comment, to me at least, suggested a pattern of behaviour. Not one single inappropriate incident (when both parties had been drinking), for which an apology had been issued and accepted. 

To try and imply someone has a problem with their conduct and character in general based on that one incident is outrageous IMO. 

I'm only commenting on this very specifically in the context of "handsy" , i've written reams on here about what i actually think of the case etc.

On a point of pedantry it was also hair playing as well as another incident. So not single, but like you i can't be bothered having a huge debate and i suspect we broadly agree on about 99% of the same things relating to this case.

Salmond was upbraided in the House of Commons by the speaker once for "playing with" Margaret Ferriers hair during a debate, removing something from her hair it was later clarified . Ferrier being the Covid positive traveller in the SNP.

Anyway my own fault for starting this point fo pedantry.