Blairites staging a coup...

[Zhivago]

Nonsense argument. They can always be independent if they disagree so strongly with their party. Everyone who votes should know that the manifesto of the party is dependent on the leader, and therefore subject to change.

[jared_7]

Don't think Corbyn is all that interested in building bridges either. 172-40 tells you something about the breakdown in trust between leader and the PLP.

The PLP seem to think they can represent themselves. Hundreds of thousands of Labour members voted for Corbyn, only for a small cabal of Blairites to undermine him at every turn. Corbyn has been far more accomodating than I would be in his position.

Maybe Corbyn would care to accommodate more given he was elected by a few hundred thousand and the MPs by millions. Or more preferably he could go join the Socialists and leave Labour to the grown ups, and of course once safely in the fold of the SWP he'd even find he'd be accommodated.

How is that not exactly what he did? Filled his positions with an attempted mix of Blairites and his lefties? He's already started talking about things like budget surpluses and balancing books, and he put his name to the remain campaign. Regardless of how well you think he has done in these efforts, they are still efforts.

What have the Blairites done to compromise? From day one it has been attack attack attack, a constant undermining of his leadership and from what I can tell not even a single attempt to listen to his side of things or work together.

[Zhivago]

Also, this Angela Eagle woman isn't even a socialist, I mean what kind of socialist posts links to The Daily Mail on her Facebook wall??! She does not belong in the Labour party.

[Digby]

The PLP seem to think they can represent themselves. Hundreds of thousands of Labour members voted for Corbyn, only for a small cabal of Blairites to undermine him at every turn. Corbyn has been far more accomodating than I would be in his position.

Maybe Corbyn would care to accommodate more given he was elected by a few hundred thousand and the MPs by millions. Or more preferably he could go join the Socialists and leave Labour to the grown ups, and of course once safely in the fold of the SWP he'd even find he'd be accommodated.

How is that not exactly what he did? Filled his positions with an attempted mix of Blairites and his lefties? He's already started talking about things like budget surpluses and balancing books, and he put his name to the remain campaign. Regardless of how well you think he has done in these efforts, they are still efforts.

What have the Blairites done to compromise? From day one it has been attack attack attack, a constant undermining of his leadership and from what I can tell not even a single attempt to listen to his side of things or work together.

Labour's own polling has them losing as much as 1 vote in every 3 they gained at the last election, thus the grown ups in the party see very little scope to move on issues as Jeremy would direct.

At this point the party should split if the member base want such a lefty leader. Though of course those in the centre and on the right of the party are very nervous about losing union funding, still, if they really want to stand on principle they should walk away.

[Digby]

Also, this Angela Eagle woman isn't even a socialist, I mean what kind of socialist posts links to The Daily Mail on her Facebook wall??! She does not belong in the Labour party.

It's not a socialist party, there is a socialist party for anyone who wants to join one.

[Zhivago]

Also, this Angela Eagle woman isn't even a socialist, I mean what kind of socialist posts links to The Daily Mail on her Facebook wall??! She does not belong in the Labour party.

It's not a socialist party, there is a socialist party for anyone who wants to join one.

Absurd!

In the rule book it says in the first sentence of Clause IV, "The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. "

http://labourlist.org/wp-content/upload ... k-2013.pdf
(Page 6)

[Digby]

Also, this Angela Eagle woman isn't even a socialist, I mean what kind of socialist posts links to The Daily Mail on her Facebook wall??! She does not belong in the Labour party.

It's not a socialist party, there is a socialist party for anyone who wants to join one.

Absurd!

In the rule book it says in the first sentence of Clause IV, "The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. "

http://labourlist.org/wp-content/upload ... k-2013.pdf
(Page 6)

Back in the real world it wasn't a socialist party under Kinnock, which is as far back as I remember, and it wasn't dragged left of Kinnock under Smith, Blair, Brown or Milliband

[Zhivago]

Maybe Corbyn would care to accommodate more given he was elected by a few hundred thousand and the MPs by millions. Or more preferably he could go join the Socialists and leave Labour to the grown ups, and of course once safely in the fold of the SWP he'd even find he'd be accommodated.

How is that not exactly what he did? Filled his positions with an attempted mix of Blairites and his lefties? He's already started talking about things like budget surpluses and balancing books, and he put his name to the remain campaign. Regardless of how well you think he has done in these efforts, they are still efforts.

What have the Blairites done to compromise? From day one it has been attack attack attack, a constant undermining of his leadership and from what I can tell not even a single attempt to listen to his side of things or work together.

Labour's own polling has them losing as much as 1 vote in every 3 they gained at the last election, thusthe grown ups in the party see very little scope to move on issues as Jeremy would direct.

At this point the party should split if the member base want such a lefty leader. Though of course those in the centre and on the right of the party are very nervous about losing union funding, still, if they really want to stand on principle they should walk away.

You mean the ones behaving like bullies in a primary school playground spreading gossip?

[Zhivago]

It's not a socialist party, there is a socialist party for anyone who wants to join one.

Absurd!

In the rule book it says in the first sentence of Clause IV, "The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. "

http://labourlist.org/wp-content/upload ... k-2013.pdf
(Page 6)

Back in the real world it wasn't a socialist party under Kinnock, which is as far back as I remember, and it wasn't dragged left of Kinnock under Smith, Blair, Brown or Milliband

You wouldn't know the real world if it hit you in the face.

[Digby]

How is that not exactly what he did? Filled his positions with an attempted mix of Blairites and his lefties? He's already started talking about things like budget surpluses and balancing books, and he put his name to the remain campaign. Regardless of how well you think he has done in these efforts, they are still efforts.

What have the Blairites done to compromise? From day one it has been attack attack attack, a constant undermining of his leadership and from what I can tell not even a single attempt to listen to his side of things or work together.

Labour's own polling has them losing as much as 1 vote in every 3 they gained at the last election, thusthe grown ups in the party see very little scope to move on issues as Jeremy would direct.

At this point the party should split if the member base want such a lefty leader. Though of course those in the centre and on the right of the party are very nervous about losing union funding, still, if they really want to stand on principle they should walk away.

You mean the ones behaving like bullies in a primary school playground spreading gossip?

There's some daft practices in politics, if it helps I've not hear much gossip about Jeremy though I don't read any of tabloids. And at a time when the shadow chancellor berates the London Mayor for being on the same platform as the PM I'd suggest if's the lefties acting (and failing) as school bullies.

[jared_7]

Maybe Corbyn would care to accommodate more given he was elected by a few hundred thousand and the MPs by millions. Or more preferably he could go join the Socialists and leave Labour to the grown ups, and of course once safely in the fold of the SWP he'd even find he'd be accommodated.

How is that not exactly what he did? Filled his positions with an attempted mix of Blairites and his lefties? He's already started talking about things like budget surpluses and balancing books, and he put his name to the remain campaign. Regardless of how well you think he has done in these efforts, they are still efforts.

What have the Blairites done to compromise? From day one it has been attack attack attack, a constant undermining of his leadership and from what I can tell not even a single attempt to listen to his side of things or work together.

Labour's own polling has them losing as much as 1 vote in every 3 they gained at the last election, thus the grown ups in the party see very little scope to move on issues as Jeremy would direct.

At this point the party should split if the member base want such a lefty leader. Though of course those in the centre and on the right of the party are very nervous about losing union funding, still, if they really want to stand on principle they should walk away.

Lol, it's a self fulfilling prophecy; They are losing votes because the party is a fucking mess of division and internal sniping from the Blairites. We don't know how an actual party under Corbyn would do because he, quite literally, wasn't given a single day since coming into power of a chance to push policy.

You said there needs to be accommodation, I've highlighted examples of Corbyn doing so. Can you give any of the Blairites making any efforts to compromise and move forward?

[fivepointer]

How is that not exactly what he did? Filled his positions with an attempted mix of Blairites and his lefties? He's already started talking about things like budget surpluses and balancing books, and he put his name to the remain campaign. Regardless of how well you think he has done in these efforts, they are still efforts.

What have the Blairites done to compromise? From day one it has been attack attack attack, a constant undermining of his leadership and from what I can tell not even a single attempt to listen to his side of things or work together.

Labour's own polling has them losing as much as 1 vote in every 3 they gained at the last election, thus the grown ups in the party see very little scope to move on issues as Jeremy would direct.

At this point the party should split if the member base want such a lefty leader. Though of course those in the centre and on the right of the party are very nervous about losing union funding, still, if they really want to stand on principle they should walk away.

Lol, it's a self fulfilling prophecy; They are losing votes because the party is a fucking mess of division and internal sniping from the Blairites. We don't know how an actual party under Corbyn would do because he, quite literally, wasn't given a single day since coming into power of a chance to push policy.

You said there needs to be accommodation, I've highlighted examples of Corbyn doing so. Can you give any of the Blairites making any efforts to compromise and move forward?

Dont make the mistake of thinking that every Labour MP opposed to Corbyn and critical of his leadership is a Blairite.

There has been a hard core of 20-30 MP's who have done everything they could to undermine him from day one with the willing assistance of sections of the media. Frankly these Mp's need to ask themselves whether they belong in the party.

In the middle ground are the bulk of centrist and soft left MP's who on the whole have been willing to give Corbyn a chance and to work with him where they could. The fact that he has lost the trust of this section of the PLP really should make it obvious that his leadership has very serious flaws. The no confidence vote is quite damning. 80% of his party at Westminster find his leadership unsatisfactory and cannot work with him.

[Digby]

There has been a hard core of 20-30 MP's who have done everything they could to undermine him from day one with the willing assistance of sections of the media. Frankly these Mp's need to ask themselves whether they belong in the party.

Problem with that is Corbyn has a long, long history of voting against his party leaders, so he's in no position to say others aren't free to do similar without looking still loopier.

[jared_7]

Labour's own polling has them losing as much as 1 vote in every 3 they gained at the last election, thus the grown ups in the party see very little scope to move on issues as Jeremy would direct.

At this point the party should split if the member base want such a lefty leader. Though of course those in the centre and on the right of the party are very nervous about losing union funding, still, if they really want to stand on principle they should walk away.

Lol, it's a self fulfilling prophecy; They are losing votes because the party is a fucking mess of division and internal sniping from the Blairites. We don't know how an actual party under Corbyn would do because he, quite literally, wasn't given a single day since coming into power of a chance to push policy.

You said there needs to be accommodation, I've highlighted examples of Corbyn doing so. Can you give any of the Blairites making any efforts to compromise and move forward?

Dont make the mistake of thinking that every Labour MP opposed to Corbyn and critical of his leadership is a Blairite.

There has been a hard core of 20-30 MP's who have done everything they could to undermine him from day one with the willing assistance of sections of the media. Frankly these Mp's need to ask themselves whether they belong in the party.

In the middle ground are the bulk of centrist and soft left MP's who on the whole have been willing to give Corbyn a chance and to work with him where they could. The fact that he has lost the trust of this section of the PLP really should make it obvious that his leadership has very serious flaws. The no confidence vote is quite damning. 80% of his party at Westminster find his leadership unsatisfactory and cannot work with him.

But once again, the vote of no confidence surely relates to the fact the Labour Party is in tatters?

If those 20-30 Consevatives within the Labour Party hadn't rocked the ship to the point it was sinking, would there be no confidence?

[Eugene Wrayburn]

Lol, it's a self fulfilling prophecy; They are losing votes because the party is a fucking mess of division and internal sniping from the Blairites. We don't know how an actual party under Corbyn would do because he, quite literally, wasn't given a single day since coming into power of a chance to push policy.

You said there needs to be accommodation, I've highlighted examples of Corbyn doing so. Can you give any of the Blairites making any efforts to compromise and move forward?

Dont make the mistake of thinking that every Labour MP opposed to Corbyn and critical of his leadership is a Blairite.

There has been a hard core of 20-30 MP's who have done everything they could to undermine him from day one with the willing assistance of sections of the media. Frankly these Mp's need to ask themselves whether they belong in the party.

In the middle ground are the bulk of centrist and soft left MP's who on the whole have been willing to give Corbyn a chance and to work with him where they could. The fact that he has lost the trust of this section of the PLP really should make it obvious that his leadership has very serious flaws. The no confidence vote is quite damning. 80% of his party at Westminster find his leadership unsatisfactory and cannot work with him.

But once again, the vote of no confidence surely relates to the fact the Labour Party is in tatters?

If those 20-30 Consevatives within the Labour Party hadn't rocked the ship to the point it was sinking, would there be no confidence?

If he were a halfway decent leader he wouldn't have let 20 disaffected MPs pollute the entire parliamentary party within 9 months.

[Zhivago]

Dont make the mistake of thinking that every Labour MP opposed to Corbyn and critical of his leadership is a Blairite.

There has been a hard core of 20-30 MP's who have done everything they could to undermine him from day one with the willing assistance of sections of the media. Frankly these Mp's need to ask themselves whether they belong in the party.

In the middle ground are the bulk of centrist and soft left MP's who on the whole have been willing to give Corbyn a chance and to work with him where they could. The fact that he has lost the trust of this section of the PLP really should make it obvious that his leadership has very serious flaws. The no confidence vote is quite damning. 80% of his party at Westminster find his leadership unsatisfactory and cannot work with him.

But once again, the vote of no confidence surely relates to the fact the Labour Party is in tatters?

If those 20-30 Consevatives within the Labour Party hadn't rocked the ship to the point it was sinking, would there be no confidence?

If he were a halfway decent leader he wouldn't have let 20 disaffected MPs pollute the entire parliamentary party within 9 months.

What would you have preferred, a stalinist purge?

[Eugene Wrayburn]

But once again, the vote of no confidence surely relates to the fact the Labour Party is in tatters?

If those 20-30 Consevatives within the Labour Party hadn't rocked the ship to the point it was sinking, would there be no confidence?

If he were a halfway decent leader he wouldn't have let 20 disaffected MPs pollute the entire parliamentary party within 9 months.

What would you have preferred, a stalinist purge?

There are other ways of leading.

[Digby]

There are other ways of leading.

I'd grant him there's a problem that they didn't want to follow him, but his first meeting as leader with them was a shocker, and frankly he had to know this was a problem when he asked for the job. And he had to know he'd spent decades voting against his own party leadership so would have sod all to complain about if others didn't agree with him.

At this point he's tried leading but no one wants to follow, and a leader with no followers is just an angry ranting soul.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

There are other ways of leading.

I'd grant him there's a problem that they didn't want to follow him, but his first meeting as leader with them was a shocker, and frankly he had to know this was a problem when he asked for the job. And he had to know he'd spent decades voting against his own party leadership so would have sod all to complain about if others didn't agree with him.

At this point he's tried leading but no one wants to follow, and a leader with no followers is just an angry ranting soul.

Has he tried leading? Is there a policy portfolio that I've missed? i know he's set up a lot of committees to think about various issues but he seems pretty short on actual policy vision and therefore a rallying point.

[Digby]

Has he tried leading? Is there a policy portfolio that I've missed? i know he's set up a lot of committees to think about various issues but he seems pretty short on actual policy vision and therefore a rallying point.

He's never recovered from that first meeting which descended into a shouting match with his shadow cabinet. People walked out, there were tears, and I'm told he's barely met with anyone who doesn't agree with him since. And until they can get together and form policy he can't release anything when his own party's big figures will trash it. Again I have no sympathy as he had to know this would be the case when clearly many had an issue with Red Ed before him and what policy had been.

[Donny osmond]

Has he tried leading? Is there a policy portfolio that I've missed? i know he's set up a lot of committees to think about various issues but he seems pretty short on actual policy vision and therefore a rallying point.

He's never recovered from that first meeting which descended into a shouting match with his shadow cabinet. People walked out, there were tears, and I'm told he's barely met with anyone who doesn't agree with him since. And until they can get together and form policy he can't release anything when his own party's big figures will trash it. Again I have no sympathy as he had to know this would be the case when clearly many had an issue with Red Ed before him and what policy had been.

People talk about him being a decent and courageous man, and I'm sure he is both those things, but decency and courage are only half the battle... If he isn't intelligent enough to be good at both the art and science of politics then he's the wrong man for the job. You only have to see or hear him speak to realize that he isn't particularly intelligent and in being a completely uninspiring leader he clearly knows 3/4 of fuck all about being good at politics. The wrong man has been elevated above his station - happens all the time and they always get found out. He has, and he should realize it asap if he's gives a flying fuck about the labour party as a political force.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

[Zhivago]

Has he tried leading? Is there a policy portfolio that I've missed? i know he's set up a lot of committees to think about various issues but he seems pretty short on actual policy vision and therefore a rallying point.

He's never recovered from that first meeting which descended into a shouting match with his shadow cabinet. People walked out, there were tears, and I'm told he's barely met with anyone who doesn't agree with him since. And until they can get together and form policy he can't release anything when his own party's big figures will trash it. Again I have no sympathy as he had to know this would be the case when clearly many had an issue with Red Ed before him and what policy had been.

People talk about him being a decent and courageous man, and I'm sure he is both those things, but decency and courage are only half the battle... If heisn't intelligent enough to be good at both the art and science of politics then he's the wrong man for the job. You only have to see or hear him speak to realize that he isn't particularly intelligent and in being a completely uninspiring leader he clearly knows 3/4 of fuck all about being good at politics. The wrong man has been elevated above his station - happens all the time and they always get found out. He has, and he should realize it asap if he's gives a flying fuck about the labour party as a political force.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

What does that even mean? Spin? Rhetoric? Is that even necessary nowadays? Surely compassion, honesty, decency, and courage are more important.

[Zhivago]

Has he tried leading? Is there a policy portfolio that I've missed? i know he's set up a lot of committees to think about various issues but he seems pretty short on actual policy vision and therefore a rallying point.

He's never recovered from that first meeting which descended into a shouting match with his shadow cabinet. People walked out, there were tears, and I'm told he's barely met with anyone who doesn't agree with him since. And until they can get together and form policy he can't release anything when his own party's big figures will trash it. Again I have no sympathy as he had to know this would be the case when clearly many had an issue with Red Ed before him and what policy had been.

Showing your true colours here. Do you have nightmares of commies under your bed?

[kk67]

There's some daft practices in politics, if it helps I've not hear much gossip about Jeremy though I don't read any of tabloids. And at a time when the shadow chancellor berates the London Mayor for being on the same platform as the PM I'd suggest if's the lefties acting (and failing) as school bullies.

It seems odd that at the very time the entire world is in need of probity in politics, you've decided to discount that imperative in favour of,.......

you not reading the tabloids.

[Donny osmond]

He's never recovered from that first meeting which descended into a shouting match with his shadow cabinet. People walked out, there were tears, and I'm told he's barely met with anyone who doesn't agree with him since. And until they can get together and form policy he can't release anything when his own party's big figures will trash it. Again I have no sympathy as he had to know this would be the case when clearly many had an issue with Red Ed before him and what policy had been.

People talk about him being a decent and courageous man, and I'm sure he is both those things, but decency and courage are only half the battle... If heisn't intelligent enough to be good at both the art and science of politics then he's the wrong man for the job. You only have to see or hear him speak to realize that he isn't particularly intelligent and in being a completely uninspiring leader he clearly knows 3/4 of fuck all about being good at politics. The wrong man has been elevated above his station - happens all the time and they always get found out. He has, and he should realize it asap if he's gives a flying fuck about the labour party as a political force.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

What does that even mean? Spin? Rhetoric? Is that even necessary nowadays? Surely compassion, honesty, decency, and courage are more important.

Exactly what it says. All these other attributes are great and desirable but don't mean anything if a politician isn't intelligent enough to know how to use them. Perfect example: allowing his words at the publication of a report into antisemitism to be construed as antisemitic. He had the decency and courage to stand up for his beliefs, but is too dumb to be able to do that and construct a sentence that couldn't be misconstrued. My problem with Corbyn isn't his beliefs, a lot of which I probably share, its that he's too thick +/or self-centered to be able to inspire anyone to go along with him.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk