Jeremy Corbyn's time is up

[SpookyFrank]

When the Labour Party advertises for candidates to apply for the vacant seat of Islington North, while Corbyn is still the MP, I can imagine all sorts of things happening, and not many of them are pretty

They don't really do candidate selection any more. They just carve off another slice of grey goo extruded from the big blairite cloning machine and shove it into a suit.

 

[PR1Berske]

Paul Waugh has some background to the events of yesterday in this thread and the "i" website.

 

[hash tag]

Just the beginning of the plan for KS's left....to take them right.

 

[Pickman's model]

Just the beginning of the plan for KS's left....to take them right.

And this is why I think the tory loss - if loss it is - will be smaller than expected

 

[The39thStep]

If that's your prime criteria for how you vote rather than which party you support (or oppose) fine but I don't think it would be on most people's list of top 10 reasons.

Saying that having a record of being a good constituency MP is a desirable doesn't translate into me saying that's its the prime criteria for how I vote.

Anyway heres a useful indication of how important voters actually view local casework ( Parliamentary Affairs, Volume 68)

 

[Karl Masks]

Shit things liberals say

 

[Karl Masks]

Paul Waugh has some background to the events of yesterday in this thread and the "i" website.

He's doing this to draw out the corbyn support and then marginalise it. He knows he can't win Islington if Corbyn stands, which he has every right to

 

[hitmouse]

I'm not opening up a line of argument, I'm simply stating a fact: I know some gender critical feminists who've previously said they won't be voting Labour.

I don't think there's any such thing as "simply stating a fact", especially in matters like this - for one thing, we're all constantly making decisions about which facts it's helpful or appropriate to bring up in which conversations and which ones are irrelevant or unhelpful. Secondly, your original post went quite some way beyond "simply stating a fact", what you actually said was

...I think that coupled with women's rights* will impact results in the next election, loss of seats and/or low turnout.

*I know a fair few lefty gender critical feminists who feel politically homeless and won't be voting Labour.

So you were both making a claim/prediction about the electoral importance of the gender critical vote, and also choosing one particular way to frame the issue - you could have framed the issue as being about "disagreements over trans issues", or indeed about "people who think that Labour isn't transphobic enough", describing it as an issue of "women's rights" is a very particular way to approach it. (Which women? Are trans women included in these rights?)

I can't say for sure whether you agree or disagree with the transphobes that you know - I could take a guess, but you haven't given me enough information to say. But I don't for a moment think that you've just decided to come onto the Jeremy Corbyn thread and start innocently stating facts about gender critical feminists, a subject that no-one else was talking about, because you have absolutely no views of your own on the subject. I'm sure you do have some opinions, so please have the dignity and self-respect to say what they are and stop hiding behind this "simply stating a fact" line.

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

I don't think there's any such thing as "simply stating a fact", especially in matters like this - for one thing, we're all constantly making decisions about which facts it's helpful or appropriate to bring up in which conversations and which ones are irrelevant or unhelpful. Secondly, your original post went quite some way beyond "simply stating a fact", what you actually said was

So you were both making a claim/prediction about the electoral importance of the gender critical vote, and also choosing one particular way to frame the issue - you could have framed the issue as being about "disagreements over trans issues", or indeed about "people who think that Labour isn't transphobic enough", describing it as an issue of "women's rights" is a very particular way to approach it. (Which women? Are trans women included in these rights?)

I can't say for sure whether you agree or disagree with the transphobes that you know - I could take a guess, but you haven't given me enough information to say. But I don't for a moment think that you've just decided to come onto the Jeremy Corbyn thread and start innocently stating facts about gender critical feminists, a subject that no-one else was talking about, because you have absolutely no views of your own on the subject. I'm sure you do have some opinions, so please have the dignity and self-respect to say what they are and stop hiding behind this "simply stating a fact" line.

How am I not stating a fact?

I know some gender critical feminist women who were previously Labour voters who say they now won't vote Labour.

That isn't an opinion.

 

[hitmouse]

How am I not stating a fact?

I know some gender critical feminist women who were previously Labour voters who say they now won't vote Labour.

That isn't an opinion.

I mean, I explained at quite some length above why I don't think that "just stating a fact" is an accurate description of the way you brought it up. But anyway, now that you have Stated Your Fact, do you have any opinions to share about your Fact, or are you just going to leave it there?

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

I don't think there's any such thing as "simply stating a fact", especially in matters like this - for one thing, we're all constantly making decisions about which facts it's helpful or appropriate to bring up in which conversations and which ones are irrelevant or unhelpful. Secondly, your original post went quite some way beyond "simply stating a fact", what you actually said was

So you were both making a claim/prediction about the electoral importance of the gender critical vote, and also choosing one particular way to frame the issue - you could have framed the issue as being about "disagreements over trans issues", or indeed about "people who think that Labour isn't transphobic enough", describing it as an issue of "women's rights" is a very particular way to approach it. (Which women? Are trans women included in these rights?)

I can't say for sure whether you agree or disagree with the transphobes that you know - I could take a guess, but you haven't given me enough information to say. But I don't for a moment think that you've just decided to come onto the Jeremy Corbyn thread and start innocently stating facts about gender critical feminists, a subject that no-one else was talking about, because you have absolutely no views of your own on the subject. I'm sure you do have some opinions, so please have the dignity and self-respect to say what they are and stop hiding behind this "simply stating a fact" line.

Here is the original exchange:

Think he's already gambled on getting enough funding in from elsewhere for it not to matter but routinely hemorrhaging party members does take a toll. If they aren't harassing people on doorsteps and paying subs then someone else has to. They've already lost the young and Left Wing ones, if they drive off too many of the old hardcore of forever Labour types then, from what I've seen at least, they'll be left with a handful of middle class, middle managers locally and they tend to prefer having a title to actually doing stuff.

My reply:

"I know a fair few people who joined the party in the run up to Corbyn becoming leader and after he was voted in. Many of them were very active, going to meetings, leafleting, canvassing on foot and by phone, many going to campaign/canvas in marginal areas too.

Most of them have now left the party.

It's all very well expelling people from the party or pushing them out, effectively making the party so hostile that they resign themselves, but come the next election they will struggle to get enough foot soldiers to do that kind of thing.

Corbynism/Momentum was more of a mass movement.

Starmer doesn't inspire that kind of effort and activity.

I think that coupled with women's rights* will impact results in the next election, loss of seats and/or low turnout.

*I know a fair few lefty gender critical feminists who feel politically homeless and won't be voting Labour."




Hitmouse, you selectively quoted a small proportion of my original message and have, effectively, accused me of deliberately bringing up that sole issue.

If you re-read my original message, I was responding to what YouSir said about They've already lost the young and Left Wing ones, if they drive off too many of the old hardcore of forever Labour types -

I was, effectively, agreeing that they've lost the young and left wingers - the Corbynites and Momentum types among my friends and acquaintances. And then I pointed out that they are driving away some of the hardcore of forever Labour types, ie the gender critical feminists I mentioned.

And I pointed out that all those factors will impact the results of the next election [negatively, from Labour's perspective].

I'm passing comment on what I've read and heard, in response to someone else's post, I was specifically responding to their post with my own observations, having come to this thread because it's topical, because of what Starmer said.

 

[steeplejack]

Labour never learn.

Ken Livingstone, Rhodri Morgan, Dennis Canavan, won insurgent campaigns against the colourless candidates of the party machine. By doing this they simply prolong the Corbyn hate machine as an issue they have to deal with. Like pulling a thorn out your heel only to jab it straight back in in another place. Totally ludicrous.

Corbyn, if he did stand as an independent, with his long years of service in Islington and the very clumsy way this has been handled, would rout any slab of grey Blairite goo.

 

[agricola]

Labour never learn.

Ken Livingstone, Rhodri Morgan, Dennis Canavan, won insurgent campaigns against the colourless candidates of the party machine. By doing this they simply prolong the Corbyn hate machine as an issue they have to deal with. Like pulling a thorn out your heel only to jab it straight back in in another place. Totally ludicrous.

Corbyn, if he did stand as an independent, with his long years of service in Islington and the very clumsy way this has been handled, would rout any slab of grey Blairite goo.

The Corbyn hate machine has been resurgent ever since Arteta got rid of Aubameyang though

 

[hitmouse]

Here is the original exchange:

My reply:

"I know a fair few people who joined the party in the run up to Corbyn becoming leader and after he was voted in. Many of them were very active, going to meetings, leafleting, canvassing on foot and by phone, many going to campaign/canvas in marginal areas too.

Most of them have now left the party.

It's all very well expelling people from the party or pushing them out, effectively making the party so hostile that they resign themselves, but come the next election they will struggle to get enough foot soldiers to do that kind of thing.

Corbynism/Momentum was more of a mass movement.

Starmer doesn't inspire that kind of effort and activity.

I think that coupled with women's rights* will impact results in the next election, loss of seats and/or low turnout.

*I know a fair few lefty gender critical feminists who feel politically homeless and won't be voting Labour."




Hitmouse, you selectively quoted a small proportion of my original message and have, effectively, accused me of deliberately bringing up that sole issue.

If you re-read my original message, I was responding to what YouSir said about They've already lost the young and Left Wing ones, if they drive off too many of the old hardcore of forever Labour types -

I was, effectively, agreeing that they've lost the young and left wingers - the Corbynites and Momentum types among my friends and acquaintances. And then I pointed out that they are driving away some of the hardcore of forever Labour types, ie the gender critical feminists I mentioned.

And I pointed out that all those factors will impact the results of the next election [negatively, from Labour's perspective].

I'm passing comment on what I've read and heard, in response to someone else's post, I was specifically responding to their post with my own observations, having come to this thread because it's topical, because of what Starmer said.

I didn't reply to the rest of your post because I didn't have an issue with it, I was actually in complete agreement with what you were saying until I got to the last few sentences. It's still the case that you came into a discussion that had nowt to do with trans issues or transphobia and raised an observation that, as far as I could tell, looks like you were criticising Starmer for not being transphobic enough. Do you understand why people might a bit touchy about this topic on this particular week?

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

I didn't reply to the rest of your post because I didn't have an issue with it, I was actually in complete agreement with what you were saying until I got to the last few sentences. It's still the case that you came into a discussion that had nowt to do with trans issues or transphobia and raised an observation that, as far as I could tell, looks like you were criticising Starmer for not being transphobic enough. Do you understand why people might a bit touchy about this topic on this particular week?

I made the point, in response to YouSir saying "They've already lost the young and Left Wing ones, if they drive off too many of the old hardcore of forever Labour types" - that I was aware of (a specific but arguably statistically significant demographic) of hardcore lefties, usual Labour voters, who have publicly stated that they will no longer be voting Labour, having also mentioned the Corbynistas/Momentum-types, thus I had referred to two distinct (but potentially overlapping) demographics of soon-to-be-former-Labour-voters - again, in direct response to what YouSir said.

NB: It's possible to agree that someone's interpretation of a situation is correct without necessarily agreeing with the opinions or behaviours of those who are contributing to/effecting that situation. For example, YouSir has made an observation, interpreted the situation, eg when YouSir said:

"Think he's already gambled on getting enough funding in from elsewhere for it not to matter but routinely hemorrhaging party members does take a toll. If they aren't harassing people on doorsteps and paying subs then someone else has to. They've already lost the young and Left Wing ones, if they drive off too many of the old hardcore of forever Labour types then, from what I've seen at least, they'll be left with a handful of middle class, middle managers locally and they tend to prefer having a title to actually doing stuff.".

YouSir wasn't expressing an opinion as to whether they thought Starmer was right or wrong, didn't express an opinion as to whether or not they agreed with/supported Starmer, they were commenting on the party's funding situation, losing members, and what the repercussions of that would be. I agreed with their assessment of the situation.

NB: I'm not a Labour party member, not a party political tribalist - I'm actually an equal opportunities sceptic, wouldn't want to belong to any party that would have me - but I know many people who are members, or who joined during the Corbyn era and subsequently left, some suspended and/or expelled, and I know loads of lefty activisty types more generally, so was simply stating an observation of some other people's declared [not-]voting intentions, which effectively backed up what YouSir was saying (general point being Starmer and Labour are in difficulties).

Similarly, I wasn't expressing an opinion as to whether I thought Starmer was right or wrong, I was similarly commenting on the haemorrhaging of members and what the repercussions of that would be, which backed up YouSir's thoughts about Labour - reading between the lines: losing foot soldiers for campaigning and canvassing, and I extended that by pointing out they're not only losing members, but losing votes (and I suspect they're not really aware of how many votes they're losing, tbh).

If you think I'm criticising Starmer for being not transphobic enough, then you're projecting that on to me. I did not say that at all, nor do I think it. Please stop putting words in my mouth and then criticising me for things I haven't actually said.

ETA: I won't be responding again, hitmouse, because you're effectively arguing with yourself, arguing with things that you're projecting that I've said and think, when they're just your projections, and because I don't want to continue this discussion, about something which, as you've pointed out yourself, is neither the time nor the place to be arguing.

 

[scifisam]

Labour never learn.

Ken Livingstone, Rhodri Morgan, Dennis Canavan, won insurgent campaigns against the colourless candidates of the party machine. By doing this they simply prolong the Corbyn hate machine as an issue they have to deal with. Like pulling a thorn out your heel only to jab it straight back in in another place. Totally ludicrous.

Corbyn, if he did stand as an independent, with his long years of service in Islington and the very clumsy way this has been handled, would rout any slab of grey Blairite goo.

Agreed, especially since it'd be very unlikely they'd find someone good to stand against him. And some people who aren't that into politics will vote Corbyn because he's been ousted. Not a huge number of people, but they'll add to the Labour voters who'd vote Corbyn rather than Labour. Being a good constituency MP does matter.

He does want to stand a Labour representative, though. Him not being allowed to is yet another reason I (in a different constituency) will have to hold my nose in order to vote Labour.

 

[AmateurAgitator]

Amazing that lefties are still frantically wanking themselves off over Corbyn. His (probably carefully chosen) constituents slobber over him on Novara Media and Politics Joe voxpops. Interesting how nobody ever seems to consider the fact that he did precisely nothing about Newham and other Labour councils and their policies of social cleansing when he was their leader. Still, in a culture steeped in authoritarianism, hierarchy and deference I guess we shouldn’t be surprised by his status amongst his followers as the second coming, despite the heaping evidence that he was just another false prophet.

 

[Pickman's model]

Amazing that lefties are still frantically wanking themselves off over Corbyn. His (probably carefully chosen) constituents slobber over him on Novara Media and Politics Joe voxpops. Interesting how nobody ever seems to consider the fact that he did precisely nothing about Newham and other Labour councils and their policies of social cleansing when he was their leader. Still, in a culture steeped in authoritarianism, hierarchy and deference I guess we shouldn’t be surprised by his status amongst his followers as the second coming, despite the heaping evidence that he was just another false prophet.

pisspoor. no one ever considered during corbyn's tenure labour in local govt and social cleansing? utter bollocks, eg Is Brexit actually going to happen?

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

pisspoor. no one ever considered during corbyn's tenure labour in local govt and social cleansing? utter bollocks, eg Is Brexit actually going to happen?

True. I agree with your point in that other thread. Labour in power in cities around the country aren't necessarily much/any better, they become part of the problem, lots of social cleansing of poor/working class areas, handing over land to property developers, granting planning permission on the basis of providing X number of shared ownership/affordable/social housing units, then failing to do anything when the property developers pull a fast one and decide not to provide the shared ownership/affordable/social housing units after all, after the property developers crunched some more numbers (having already been granted planning permission) and then they say the development is no longer financially viable if they have to provide properties for the poor, then there's the councils failing to implement Section 106 (getting money from property developers to improve local amenities). They're a shitshow in local government too. There are some good people, trying their hardest for their local communities, but they're swimming upstream.

 

[AmateurAgitator]

In response to Pickman's comment that I've only just seen - I was ofcourse referring to Corbyn's supporters/followers who are still desperately clinging on to him and any hope of him being elected to this day. Such is the dire state of what passes for 'the left' these days. I wasn't referring specifically to those on these forums - though if what I said about Labour councils has been highlighted on here then it still beggars belief that people continue with supporting this social democratic nonsense. I think it says alot about the sort of people who support that type of politics.

 

[hash tag]

From today's rag, big brother is watching the lefties Leftwing Labour MPs fear losing whip after Jeremy Corbyn barred

 

[a_chap]

From today's rag, big brother is watching the lefties Leftwing Labour MPs fear losing whip after Jeremy Corbyn barred

"Allies of Starmer now hold all the main levers of power in the party and say the strategy of rejecting the mistakes of the Corbyn years, especially being tough on antisemitism, is reaping major rewards in the polls, where Labour is 20 points ahead."

I mean call me naïve, but I don't think that's the reason Labour is ahead in the polls...

 

[two sheds]

Yes lots more of that sort of stuff if he gets to win the election

 

[Duncan2]

"Allies of Starmer now hold all the main levers of power in the party and say the strategy of rejecting the mistakes of the Corbyn years, especially being tough on antisemitism, is reaping major rewards in the polls, where Labour is 20 points ahead."

I mean call me naïve, but I don't think that's the reason Labour is ahead in the polls...

It would scarcely be too simplistic to say that people dying in ambulances parked outside hospitals or on the floor at home is the reason Labour are twenty points ahead in the polls.

 

[ska invita]

It would scarcely be too simplistic to say that people dying in ambulances parked outside hospitals or on the floor at home is the reason Labour are twenty points ahead in the polls.

Its the lack of Man o the People Boris that's really saved the day

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

It would scarcely be too simplistic to say that people dying in ambulances parked outside hospitals or on the floor at home is the reason Labour are twenty points ahead in the polls.

And the cost of living crisis, and corruption, and police brutality etc etc

 

[AmateurAgitator]

This whole site is dogshit, absolute pile of wank.

 

[Pickman's model]

This whole site is dogshit, absolute pile of wank.

It wasn't like that before you turned up

 

[AmateurAgitator]

Yes lots more of that sort of stuff if he gets to win the election

You stupid wankstain

 

[hash tag]

This whole site is dogshit, absolute pile of wank.

Yet you are still here and posting