Corbyn Labour leadership the disaster everybody knew it would be

[Jack_of_Words]

@Stanislaus

Ochone, ochone. Yes, it’s all someone else’s fault. Murdoch’s, for lying, or the people’s, for being gullible, meanspirited fools. Certainlly there is nothing Labour could have done against these mighty forces. Alas, and alack.

Oh, there is much Labour could have done (returned to socialist principles, for example). But that doesn’t diminish Murdoch’s role, or change the aftermath of maggie (which did indeed encourage gullible mean-spiritedness).

@Stanislaus

Actually, people could distinguish them all too well

True - Murdoch printed a handy spotters guide… Nevertheless, voters were presented with a choice between Blue Tories and Red Tories. Which is why lies about economic incompetence (you’re aware of Osborne’s record?) were needed.

@Stanislaus

• they were the ones who couldn’t be trusted on the economy. Miliband fucked Labour by failing to make any kind of case for Labour’s economic record and allowed the Tories to paint him as a naive tax and spend lefty. Thank God we’ve got the dream team of Corbyn and McDonnell to turn that ship around, eh?

It may be true - middle england, the shires, the tory heartland, all inherently selfish, as you suggest. But as the tories drag us back to the feudal state they miss so dearly, more and more people recognise that (as Marley told Scrooge) the common welfare is their business.

@Stanislaus

Oh gods. The mythical non-voter rides to our rescue again. The defining characteristic of non-voters is that they don’t vote. The lazy assumptions that they’re all going to back Corbyn and ,this time they’ll actually vote are not a plan, they’re a pipedream. The biggest first-time voter turnout in the past 50 years was in the IndyRef, they were overwhelming proIndy and No still won because voters are better at voting than non-voters.

As a Green candidate last time, I know we got ‘mythical’ non-voters out to the polls. A lot of people don’t vote when they can see no point. Given an option they approve of, they do vote.

I didn’t, by the way, make any lazy assumptions, or consider them a ‘plan’. But that’s partisan discussion for you, so much easier to trot out chapbook responses.

Are you really making the claim that ‘NO’ won because “voters are betting at voting”, or does it just read that way? I thought it was the lies and fear-mongering that won it…

@Stanislaus

How big is this digital generation, to the nearest 5% of the population? How about in the marginals? How does that compare to Mail-reading pensioners?

By the next election? 15% maybe? Outnumbered by pensioners, certainly, perhaps even by Mail-reading pensioners (my avowedly socialist pensioner neighbour reads the Mail and is pro-Corbyn, as it happens). But demographics and polls are useful for tipsters and inveterate gamblers - who knows what could happen if you (yeah, even just you) stopped imagining they knew who could win and took a stand on what should win.

@Stanislaus

Come to that - what real, fundamental change to the way politics is done is Corbyn actually proposing? There’s a lot of vaguery but what are the first three changes he’d make if he had a parliamentary majority?

I can’t say as I’m aware of Corbyn making any such statement, so I can’t help you on that. You could probably have a guess yourself. Go on, that could be entertaining. What three changes to a corrupt, unrepresentative faux-democracy should he make?

@Stanislaus

The SNP will take every opportunity it has to fuck Labour over because they do not want a resurgent Labour party - they want to stay in power. Painting Labour as ineffectual, out of touch, and in bed with the Tories is their key electoral strategy - why would they screw that up by letting them in the door? Similarly, effective opposition to the Tories shows that Scotland’s voice can be heard in the Union - why would the SNP want to sell that line?

Letting them in what door? I’m not convinced you’re reading what I’m writing. Labour would do well to consider Scotland lost - and do well to consider the SNP as suitable partners for a coalition, as I said.

@Stanislaus

I see: the policies are right, it’s just the electorate that’s wrong. And I would love progress to progress - but it won’t with Corbyn.

There’s a lot wrong with the electoral system, certainly. In England, yes, I think there’s a lot wrong with the electorate - for all sorts of reasons. Once again electing the toffs to stick their snouts in the trough while preaching austerity demonstrates how ingrained our class system is (another reason the SNP and Plaid did so well - the Welsh and Scots don’t have that kind of ‘we know our place’ mentality).

How do you expect to get progress in progress, by the way, if you’re so sure that the only way to get elected is to ape the anti-progress of the right?

[Jack_of_Words]

I thought this might amuse some of you:

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn is now so isolated politically that he can only call upon the support of a shadowy group of people known in the UK as “voters”, it emerged today.
*
“Sun columnist Ron Liddle explained that Labour hadn’t really won at all, as getting the most votes in a democratic election was no guarantee of fairness, and proved his point with examples from history including Hitler, Stalin, and, confusingly, ABBA’s 1974 Eurovision Song Contest hit “Waterloo”.”*

[Elendil_s_Heir]

@Quartz

… As Mhairi Black said in her maiden speech, it was Labour who left her rather than she who left Labour…

The perennial mock-mournful declaration of those who abandon a party. It wasn’t very convincing when Reagan said it of the Democrats, either.

[Jack_of_Words]

@Elendil_s_Heir

The perennial mock-mournful declaration of those who abandon a party. It wasn’t very convincing when Reagan said it of the Democrats, either.

Can’t speak of Reagan or the Democrats, but Labour quite clearly left (and/or betrayed) its members, its principles and its reason for being, in favour of the ambitions of a small, self-interested political class within its rank. She didn’t so much ‘abandon’ the party, she recognised the considerable shift in its identity and left it. Like you might leave (rather than ‘abandon’) a boyfriend who’d seemed a decent sort for a while, but who now drinks too much and beats you up. Can you see the difference?

[Claverhouse]

@Quartz

Actually, that would be Blair (a Scot, if you’ll recall) who introduced devolution and gave the SNP a platform on which to build, and Salmond, who pursued personal power and damn everyone else.

I truly fear for Scotland with the SNP. They are, IME, a bunch of racist bullies who are - at the top - out purely for themselves.

I completely agree — and disagree with devolution — with all of this. However, poor little Dave — also a Scot ( and my Kings had a lot of trouble with Cameronian bastards ) — will deserve especial mention in Hell’s Despatches for his demented handling of the Referendum, his shifting positions during the Referendum, and for having a stupid Referendum in the first place.

Also the SNP are as petty-bourgeois and socially/economically to the right as the present tories. There is nothing they truly adhere to except Scotland being independent and them in power forever.

[Jack_of_Words]

@Quartz

Salmond, who pursued personal power and damn everyone else.

A political leader pursuing personal power? Surely not? :eek: How unusual. Why, next you’ll be telling me Corbyn only stood by his principles for so long because he thought he’d get to be leader eventually…

[Malden_Capell]

@Jack_of_Words

Well, I doubt I’ll convince you, but I’m optimistic that a digital generation which doesn’t depend on daily newspapers for its opinions, which can share ideas and information readily, and which increasingly wants real, fundamental change to the way politics is done, will make a difference - especially as the impacts of ever deeper austerity spread.

I wish I could be that optimistic - from what I’ve seen of the ‘digital generation’, the Internet may have a wider selection of media sources but it’s considerably easier to self-edit and screen out news that it inconvenient to your world-view. Conservatives are knocked for it (rightly) all the time, but we’d be kidding ourselves if it wasn’t rampant on the left as well.

[dalej42]

@Malden_Capell

I wish I could be that optimistic - from what I’ve seen of the ‘digital generation’, the Internet may have a wider selection of media sources but it’s considerably easier to self-edit and screen out news that it inconvenient to your world-view. Conservatives are knocked for it (rightly) all the time, but we’d be kidding ourselves if it wasn’t rampant on the left as well.

Exactly. Bernie Sanders wins a meaningless online poll for Time magazine’s Person of the Year and his small group of extremely passionate and vocal supporters take to social media to declare Sanders the favorite and overwhelming choice for the Democratic nominee. Meanwhile they continue to ignore the cold hard facts about how a candidate actually obtains the nomination. Hashtags and trying to game a meaningless online poll don’t win anything and living inside a Bernie Bubble doesn’t keep you attuned to the larger political world.

[Stanislaus]

@Jack_of_Words

Oh, there is much Labour could have done (returned to socialist principles, for example).

Jack, Jack, Jack. We’re talking about things Labour could do which would *increase *their share of the vote.

True - Murdoch printed a handy spotters guide… Nevertheless, voters were presented with a choice between Blue Tories and Red Tories. Which is why lies about economic incompetence (you’re aware of Osborne’s record?) were needed.

I’m well aware - Osborne has missed every debt and deficit target he’s set himself, his initial rounds of austerity in 2010-2012 crushed the nascent recovery, and he’s perfectly happy to give large handouts to his clientele of pensioners, tax-dodgers and wealthy inheritors despite his austerity mantra. More to the point, in his latest autumn statement he not only U-turned on his massively unpopular tax-credit cut but also breached his own welfare cap as a result. And yet Corbyn and McDonnell couldn’t lay a glove on him. You can blame the papers if you like, but if Labour want to argue that the Chancellor is incompetent, they have to actually make the argument.

It may be true - middle england, the shires, the tory heartland, all inherently selfish, as you suggest. But as the tories drag us back to the feudal state they miss so dearly, more and more people recognise that (as Marley told Scrooge) the common welfare is their business.

I didn’t, by the way, make any lazy assumptions, or consider them a ‘plan’. But that’s partisan discussion for you, so much easier to trot out chapbook responses.

You are literally quoting a fable here, yet you aren’t making lazy assumptions? “Oh, the non-voters will save us, and the Tories will be so awful people have no choice but to vote for us, so we don’t have to bother winning arguments or having actual policies” is as lazy as it gets.

As a Green candidate last time, I know we got ‘mythical’ non-voters out to the polls. A lot of people don’t vote when they can see no point. Given an option they approve of, they do vote.

Did you win? Or did you need the votes of existing voters to manage that?

Are you really making the claim that ‘NO’ won because “voters are betting at voting”, or does it just read that way? I thought it was the lies and fear-mongering that won it…

Larger turnout in No voting areas was a big factor in the No win, yes. And of course you think it was lies and fearmongering - the idea that 55% of Scots might have honestly believed the Union was better is literally inconceivable, isn’t it? Once again, it’s that pesky electorate that are the problem.

By the next election? 15% maybe? Outnumbered by pensioners, certainly, perhaps even by Mail-reading pensioners

Let me stop you there, because once we’ve admitted that the digital diaspora isn’t a significant electoral force the conversation about how they’re going to overturn politics as we know it is best left to fade to a dignified end.

I can’t say as I’m aware of Corbyn making any such statement, so I can’t help you on that. You could probably have a guess yourself. Go on, that could be entertaining. What three changes to a corrupt, unrepresentative faux-democracy should he make?

Hahahaha! He’s the leader! He’ll save everyone of us! He’ll usher in a new era of new politics and new socialism and new newness!.. Not sure how exactly, but I’m sure he’ll explain at some point. In a conversation about whether someone is a good leader, not having a clue about what they’ll do in power is a clue that you’re on the losing side.

Letting them in what door? I’m not convinced you’re reading what I’m writing. Labour would do well to consider Scotland lost - and do well to consider the SNP as suitable partners for a coalition, as I said.

The door to renewed power in Scotland. Labour would love to have the SNP in coalition. What’s in it for the SNP? To repeat myself - they don’t want Labour to be effective opposition, and they don’t want Westminster to listen to Scotland. They want to be able to say “Westminster doesn’t listen to Scots, and Labour are useless. So vote SNP and vote Independence.”

There’s a lot wrong with the electoral system, certainly. In England, yes, I think there’s a lot wrong with the electorate - for all sorts of reasons. Once again electing the toffs to stick their snouts in the trough while preaching austerity demonstrates how ingrained our class system is (another reason the SNP and Plaid did so well - the Welsh and Scots don’t have that kind of ‘we know our place’ mentality).

Dude, listen to yourself. You came into this thread banging the drum for the inviolability of the electorate and the black shame that hung over anyone who tried to buck the system because they didn’t like the result. Now it turns out the electorate are despicable and we need to change the system to get the right result.

How do you expect to get progress in progress, by the way, if you’re so sure that the only way to get elected is to ape the anti-progress of the right?

You’re not reading what I’m writing:

@me

What I’d like to see in Labour is a leader who cares as passionately as Corbyn claims to about the poor, but has both a) concrete policy ideas that will actually help and b) the authority, empathy, and persuasion to get people to buy in. Corbyn isn’t that guy, but it’s fair to say that neither are Burnham, Cooper or Kendall.

[Mijin]

@Jack_of_Words

In England, yes, I think there’s a lot wrong with the electorate - for all sorts of reasons. Once again electing the toffs to stick their snouts in the trough while preaching austerity demonstrates how ingrained our class system is…

I agree with you that there’s a lot wrong with some of the electorate if they forever cling to stereotypes of parties. I prefer to make a fresh evaluation at every election, based on policies.
Last election both main parties conceded that a period of austerity was necessary. The tory’s plan seemed the more creditable to me, and to a greater proportion of the british public.

[Quartz]

@Jack_of_Words

In England, yes, I think there’s a lot wrong with the electorate - for all sorts of reasons. Once again electing the toffs to stick their snouts in the trough while preaching austerity demonstrates how ingrained our class system is

I’ve got to disagree with you here: haven’t you spotted all the Labour MPs and hangers-on with their snouts in the trough? How rich is Tony Blair now? Remember Margaret Moran (my MP at the time)? Remember that the expenses scandal caught MPs on all sides.

[Malden_Capell]

@Quartz

I’ve got to disagree with you here: haven’t you spotted all the Labour MPs and hangers-on with their snouts in the trough? How rich is Tony Blair now? Remember Margaret Moran (my MP at the time)? Remember that the expenses scandal caught MPs on all sides.

I suspect that would square with the ‘Red Tory’ claims…

[Jack_of_Words]

@Stanislaus

Jack, Jack, Jack. We’re talking about things Labour could do which would *increase *their share of the vote.

Stan, Stan, Stan. We all know we disagree, let’s try not to make it personal, eh?

Corbyn’s principles got a massive share of the vote for leader. Apparently from ‘new members’ (what a silly argument that is…) - from people who weren’t involved because they thought there was no choice that spoke for them. Until Corbyn. The Oldham candidate increased Labour’s share of the vote (but you have a silly argument for why that doesn’t count, I recall).

Your own distaste for socialism might well turn you off voting for a party that stands for something other than personal greed and pre-electoral dishonesty. Maybe it will repel many people who would prefer a choice between two right-wing parties who will lie fluently then **** their electorate. But let’s remember that it’s our democratic system that will decide, not saloon bar arguments online.

@Stanislaus

I’m well aware - Osborne has missed every debt and deficit target he’s set himself, his initial rounds of austerity in 2010-2012 crushed the nascent recovery, and he’s perfectly happy to give large handouts to his clientele of pensioners, tax-dodgers and wealthy inheritors despite his austerity mantra. More to the point, in his latest autumn statement he not only U-turned on his massively unpopular tax-credit cut but also breached his own welfare cap as a result. And yet Corbyn and McDonnell couldn’t lay a glove on him. You can blame the papers if you like, but if Labour want to argue that the Chancellor is incompetent, they have to actually make the argument.

I expect they will. Do you suppose now is the right time to do it? Give Corbyn a bell, I’m sure he’ll be even more keen to hear your advice than I am.

@Stanislaus

You are literally quoting a fable here, yet you aren’t making lazy assumptions? “Oh, the non-voters will save us, and the Tories will be so awful people have no choice but to vote for us, so we don’t have to bother winning arguments or having actual policies” is as lazy as it gets.

Introducing the second, fictional half of your misleadingly labelled ‘quote’ - literally (for a literal meaning of literal) “quoting” a ‘fable’ - is as lazy as it gets. Only slightly lazier than projecting you error onto others.

@Stanislaus

Did you win? Or did you need the votes of existing voters to manage that?

Pay attention, I said I was a Green candidate Indeed, I think I said I only stood because I knew I wouldn’t get elected. But we did increase our share of the vote (alas, so did UKIP). Are you then attempting to extrapolate from my local showing for one party to Corbyn’s national showing for another? How do you make that work in your head?

@Stanislaus

Larger turnout in No voting areas was a big factor in the No win, yes. And of course you think it was lies and fearmongering - the idea that 55% of Scots might have honestly believed the Union was better is literally inconceivable, isn’t it? Once again, it’s that pesky electorate that are the problem.

The idea of responding to what is said without making up additional bits appears to be literally inconceivable to you. Of course that 55% ‘honestly’ believed the lies and fearmongering. Again, for the hard of understanding, I don’t blame the electorate for Murdoch’s undue power. I blame the snouts. The red snouts and the blue snouts, and the yellow snouts and the purple snouts, with their cowardly short-term self-interest.

@Stanislaus

Let me stop you there, because once we’ve admitted that the digital diaspora isn’t a significant electoral force the conversation about how they’re going to overturn politics as we know it is best left to fade to a dignified end.

If one vote isn’t significant, no wonder so many people don’t bother. If 15% isn’t significant enough, if you honestly believe that all (eg) mail-reading pensioners will vote the way the mail tells them, then politics needs to be overturned. I’d rather a dignified end than an undignified capitulation, personally, but YMMV.

@Stanislaus

Hahahaha! He’s the leader! He’ll save everyone of us! He’ll usher in a new era of new politics and new socialism and new newness!.. Not sure how exactly, but I’m sure he’ll explain at some point. In a conversation about whether someone is a good leader, not having a clue about what they’ll do in power is a clue that you’re on the losing side.

Nice ‘Flash’ reference. Nice evasion, too. You can’t answer your own question, so point, laugh and mock. I advised you to consult a primary source - is that really so risible?

@Stanislaus

The door to renewed power in Scotland. Labour would love to have the SNP in coalition. What’s in it for the SNP? To repeat myself - they don’t want Labour to be effective opposition, and they don’t want Westminster to listen to Scotland. They want to be able to say “Westminster doesn’t listen to Scots, and Labour are useless. So vote SNP and vote Independence.”

I think they’d be pleased to have a more effective opposition - or rather, a larger opposition, since they’re the only effective opposition at the moment. You’re now asking me to not only justify my own party and Corbyn’s party, but the SNP as well. It seems you’ll accept nothing bar a one-party state of approved toryesque candidates. I repeat my assertion that democracy is of little interest to many in this thread.

@Stanislaus

Dude, listen to yourself. You came into this thread banging the drum for the inviolability of the electorate and the black shame that hung over anyone who tried to buck the system because they didn’t like the result. Now it turns out the electorate are despicable and we need to change the system to get the right result.

Erm…listen to yourself? You just said “Dude, listen to yourself”. Really you did, it’s just up there^, you can see it for yourself.

Then listen to the nonsense you typed after it. Don’t buck the system after the result, change the system before getting a result. Governments tinker with the system all the time - boundaries are drawn up to favour sitting parties, loyal goons are ermined up. It’s not the electorate that are despicable, it’s the power of vested interests in the media.

@Stanislaus

You’re not reading what I’m writing:

Wow, you’re like Nostradamus

[Stanislaus]

@Jack_of_Words

Stan, Stan, Stan. We all know we disagree, let’s try not to make it personal, eh?

Corbyn’s principles got a massive share of the vote for leader. Apparently from ‘new members’ (what a silly argument that is…) - from people who weren’t involved because they thought there was no choice that spoke for them. Until Corbyn. The Oldham candidate increased Labour’s share of the vote (but you have a silly argument for why that doesn’t count, I recall).

Just so I’m clear, because I think this might be the root of our disagreement: you genuinely believe that in May 2015 Labour could have won if they had been out and out socialists?

Your own distaste for socialism might well turn you off voting for a party that stands for something other than personal greed and pre-electoral dishonesty. Maybe it will repel many people who would prefer a choice between two right-wing parties who will lie fluently then **** their electorate. But let’s remember that it’s our democratic system that will decide, not saloon bar arguments online.

Our democratic system did decide - it chose the Tories. That is very poor evidence for the electoral attraction of socialism.

I expect they will. Do you suppose now is the right time to do it? Give Corbyn a bell, I’m sure he’ll be even more keen to hear your advice than I am.

Of course now is the right time to do it! Now and every week from here to the election is the time to get your central message out. Miliband’s complete failure to challenge the Tory narrative on the economy until 4 weeks before the election was a major factor in people deciding the Tory narrative was right.
[/quote]

Introducing the second, fictional half of your misleadingly labelled ‘quote’ - literally (for a literal meaning of literal) “quoting” a ‘fable’ - is as lazy as it gets. Only slightly lazier than projecting you error onto others.

I’m sure that word salad sounded impressive in your head. Out here, it’s just incomprehensible.

The idea of responding to what is said without making up additional bits appears to be literally inconceivable to you. Of course that 55% ‘honestly’ believed the lies and fearmongering. Again, for the hard of understanding, I don’t blame the electorate for Murdoch’s undue power. I blame the snouts. The red snouts and the blue snouts, and the yellow snouts and the purple snouts, with their cowardly short-term self-interest.

Maybe it wasn’t lies and fearmongering. Maybe it was an accurate assessment of the tissue thin fantasy the SNP cooked up. Have you seen what’s happened to Scotland’s hypothecated oil revenues this year? Seriously, look it up and then come back and say that throwing doubt on the financial paradise the SNP tried to sell qualifies as “lies and fearmongering”. Try this notion on for size: 55% of Scots weighed up the available information and decided, correctly, that staying in the Union was a better option. Not because they were misled, but because they thought for themselves and came to a decision you don’t agree with (the horror, the horror).
Incidentally, I’ve bolded the bit where you claim that the press holds undue power over the electorate.

If one vote isn’t significant, no wonder so many people don’t bother. If 15% isn’t significant enough, if you honestly believe that all (eg) mail-reading pensioners will vote the way the mail tells them, then politics needs to be overturned. I’d rather a dignified end than an undignified capitulation, personally, but YMMV.

15% concentrated in the marginal seats could be significant. 15% concentrated in the remaining Labour strongholds won’t be. If you had to guess, where would these pre-disposed proto-socialists be most likely to live.

Here, I’ve bolded the bit where you cast doubt on your own claim that the press holds undue power. I wish you’d make up your mind.

Nice ‘Flash’ reference. Nice evasion, too. You can’t answer your own question, so point, laugh and mock. I advised you to consult a primary source - is that really so risible?

My question was what Corbyn wants to do in power in terms of concrete policies. I have looked - I don’t see an answer. You don’t have one either. Maybe that should tell you something…

I think they’d be pleased to have a more effective opposition - or rather, a larger opposition, since they’re the only effective opposition at the moment. You’re now asking me to not only justify my own party and Corbyn’s party, but the SNP as well. It seems you’ll accept nothing bar a one-party state of approved toryesque candidates. I repeat my assertion that democracy is of little interest to many in this thread.

Spare me the strawmen. If you can’t see why the SNPs avowed political interests aren’t best served by a weak Labour party and a Tory dominated Westminster, you need to recalibrate your assessment of your political nous.

Erm…listen to yourself? You just said “Dude, listen to yourself”. Really you did, it’s just up there^, you can see it for yourself.

Dude, I know!

[quote]
Then listen to the nonsense you typed after it. Don’t buck the system after the result, change the system before getting a result. Governments tinker with the system all the time - boundaries are drawn up to favour sitting parties, loyal goons are ermined up. It’s not the electorate that are despicable, it’s the power of vested interests in the media.

[quote]

We have had a result. And you’ve decided the electorate are selfish and unpalatable off the back of it.

Wow, you’re like Nostradamus

I posted that in this thread.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

When you say, “returning to socialist principles,” do you mean nationalizing heavy industry and increasing welfare spending, or something else?

[Stanislaus]

Man, I love it when politicians speak honestly and straightforwardly about what they believe. It’s refreshing, it’s human and more importantly it’s the new kind of politics we need:

@Jess Phillips

“I would do anything that I felt was going to make the Labour party win the general election because if I don’t have that attitude then all I’m doing is colluding with the Tories.

“If that means making Jeremy better, I’ll roll my sleeves up. If that’s not going to happen – and I’ve said [this] to him and to his staff to their faces: ‘The day that … you are hurting us more than you are helping us, I won’t knife you in the back, I’ll knife you in the front.’”

Of course, the risk with this approach is that despicable people start quoting you out of context and claiming you meant things you clearly never intended. Such was the case here, with a surprising number of idiots on twitter claiming this was an actionable criminal threat of deadly assault. She responded thus:

@Jess Phillips

Just so we can get the record straight, and by that I don’t mean literally getting a record and unbending it, so let’s start again.

I want to be clear and transparent, by which I of course do not mean that I wish literally for people to be able to see through me… let’s try again.

I want to spell out, I (space ) D I D (space) N O T (space) T H R E A T E N (space) T O (space) K I L L (space) J E R E M Y (space) C O R B Y N (stop).

Did you get the message? And by that I of course don’t mean I have actually sent you a personal message. I meant did you get the point of what I was saying. Not an actual point, like a pointy object, the other sort of point. I fear this will be terribly laboured so I’ll stop pointing out all the language one could misconstrue, perhaps I’ll just italicise it.

She’s also told Diane Abbott to fuck off and George Galloway that he’s a rape apologist. Plain-speaking FTW!

[Elendil_s_Heir]

Bumped.

A sacking and four resignations from Corbyn’s shadow cabinet in the aftermath of the Brexit vote. Ouch: http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/26/europe/uk-brexit-labour-corbyn/index.html

[dalej42]

There will be a meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party on Monday and a vote of no confidence in Corbyn on Tuesday. Corbyn is history, good bye and good riddance. I do hope Hilary Benn reconsiders and runs for Labour leader after Corbyn is banished to the back benches where he belongs. Maybe he will have time to go suit shopping.

https://www.politicshome.com/news/europe/eu-policy-agenda/brexit/news/76603/labour-resignations-they-happen

[Frank]

This has nothing to do with anything Corbyn has done or not done. This is simply an opportunity for those who have opposed him since before he was elected leader to attempt to take his head.

[dalej42]

It’s now 9 members of the Shadow Cabinet that have either been sacked or resigned. Sacking Hilary Benn proves that Corbyn is a pathetic joke. I hope that Corbyn either resigns as Party Leader or is booted out on Tuesday. Hilary Benn needs to reconsider and stand for Party Leader.