Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Jeremy Corbyn's time is up

Yes but that still gives us worse government. I'm sure few on here would prefer a Tory government if they cannot get the Labour government they want? Although I recall in the 70s some anarchists wanted a right wing government elected because they believed political chaos could breed revolution. That's you, isn't it? :D
Doesn't matter too much what he wants, he hasn't lived here for years and shows no inclination of returning
 
Yes but that still gives us worse government. I'm sure few on here would prefer a Tory government if they cannot get the Labour government they want? Although I recall in the 70s some anarchists wanted a right wing government elected because they believed political chaos could breed revolution. That's you, isn't it? :D

No it isn't.

But I would prefer a Tory government to a NuLabor government, because I think NuLabor would do worse things than the Tories. It wasn't the Tories who invaded Iraq.

In the USA it's called "Nixon-to-China Syndrome." The idea being that only a politician who is labeled as "right-wing" could get away with doing something so apparently "left-wing" as opening relations with Red China. And vice versa, obviously--Bill Clinton's abolition of welfare and promotion of mass incarceration being a good example. The Republicans would never have got away with that, but Clinton did because dafties thought he was a "liberal."
 
BTW - George Eaton's evidence that Corbyn voted out appears to be some bloke who saw him in a restaurant last week claiming he asked him which way he was going to vote, and Corbyn told him 'leave'. That's it.

The attempt to pin the loss of the referendum on Corbyn against all the evidence is purely an attempt to turn his young liberal supporters away from him, nothing more. All the while telling the people they 'failed to reach out to' that they're idiot racists. Great tactic.
 
I'm not backing him though, In fact I've said on regular occasions I thought the PLP would wipe him out before now, that his politics are just warmed-up Keynesianism etc. I'm mostly in this for the entertainment value.

The difference here is I can see a car-crash when it's on its way, in which a PLP full of arrogant political wonks take down their most popular member in favour of exactly the sort of liberal Westminster bean everyone hates. And they'll do so in a poisonous manner that'll lose them the unions, the remainder of the active membership and quite probably the next two to three elections, while also essentially killing off the last remnants of left influence (because let's be clear about this, if they win now, a left-wing candidate will never happen again).

You on the other hand have nothing other than laughable characterisations of someone you've clearly never met, designed to make you feel better about backing an anti-democratic coup against the only left-winger you'll ever see in charge of Labour. You have no plan, no alternative, you've not bothered to analyse the consequences, all you have are boring, contentless appraisals of his motivations and capabilities. And that I find irritating. Why get worked up about Jeremy failing the left if all you want is for the Labour right to sort everything out for you while you merrily avoid having any original thoughts of your own or involving yourself in any concrete way? What's the point?

I'm not backing 'an-anti democratic coup', the membership will decide. Given this strong position why stick with a risible leader?

But it's also a silly position to think that absolutely everyone who disagrees with Corbyn is evil. 30 people who thought they could work with him can't. All he has left in Parliament is his dismal friendship group.

Corbyn's referendum showing indicated he was either lying or crap. Neither is tenable. We had this with Ed last time, can't oust him it's just the Blairites

At the end of the day it's a role, a job. If the membership hold the cards what is needed is a strong performer.
 
And they'll do so in a poisonous manner that'll lose them the unions,
You reckon so, I think they piss and moan a bit and then stump up the usual cash.

I may not be up on my lingo, but what the fuck are "non-ideological progressives"? It sounds like the request is "if you can't think, won't think and have no morals nor hope then join us"?
Greens, people like free spirit, Mr Moose, krtek a houby
 
FWIW BBC reporting just now that Angela Eagle is likely to be put up against Corbyn if, as expected, he loses the confidence vote. She was said to be the person all factions could agree on. Says it all really.
 
tbf, she does win (hands down) in the contest to see who has a name more closely resembling, scanning and 'rhyming' with a successful, extant national leader.
 
I'm not backing 'an-anti democratic coup', the membership will decide. Given this strong position why stick with a risible leader?

But it's also a silly position to think that absolutely everyone who disagrees with Corbyn is evil. 30 people who thought they could work with him can't. All he has left in Parliament is his dismal friendship group.

Corbyn's referendum showing indicated he was either lying or crap. Neither is tenable. We had this with Ed last time, can't oust him it's just the Blairites

At the end of the day it's a role, a job. If the membership hold the cards what is needed is a strong performer.

It's not about some sort of 'lack of charisma' or 'not being able to work with him' or 'him not being strong leadership material', it's about the battle at the core of the Labour party over its ideology and positioning. And, it won't go leftwards.
 
So as usual on the Urban politics board the dissenting voices have been shouted down . Meanwhile out in the rest of the country Corbyn is still regarded as an ineffective idealist.
None of the people I've talked to about him since Friday think he is a good Labour leader. And these are people who hate the Tories and everything they do.

You'd probably dismiss their views, calling them traitors or lickspittles. But they are the people Labour needs to connect with again if it is going to get back into power and prevent the Tories causing more shite.
You're simply replacing the rest of the country with people you know here. You're a quite well off bod in a non labour area. It's probably not key that labour appeals to you andyour mates as its core. Cobyn has passed every test with that required core though. Don't substitute yourself and your mates for that core.
 
I'm sorry, but in what universe do you (assuming your purpose is not Blairite sabotage) get rid of Jezza for lack of leadership and charisma and promote Angela Eagle?

FWIW BBC reporting just now that Angela Eagle is likely to be put up against Corbyn if, as expected, he loses the confidence vote. She was said to be the person all factions could agree on. Says it all really.

Well well.
 
I'm not backing 'an-anti democratic coup', the membership will decide. Given this strong position why stick with a risible leader?

They already did, and will again if he's on the ballot. A top-level coup to get rid of the serving leader eight months into the biggest personal grassroots mandate ever handed to a Labour chief, that's what you're advocating for. Don't hide behind waffle.

At the end of the day it's a role, a job. If the membership hold the cards what is needed is a strong performer.

But you don't have a strong performer. You've made it blindingly obvious you don't have a strong performer, because I've asked you for a name several times and you've refused to offer one.
 
But you don't have a strong performer. You've made it blindingly obvious you don't have a strong performer, because I've asked you for a name several times and you've refused to offer one.
Exactly. Who is this strong performer who is challenging Corbyn? Such a strong and confident performer that s/he has yet to show their hand. S/he seems a bit of a coward.
 
BTW - George Eaton's evidence that Corbyn voted out appears to be some bloke who saw him in a restaurant last week claiming he asked him which way he was going to vote, and Corbyn told him 'leave'. That's it.

The attempt to pin the loss of the referendum on Corbyn against all the evidence is purely an attempt to turn his young liberal supporters away from him, nothing more. All the while telling the people they 'failed to reach out to' that they're idiot racists. Great tactic.

George Eaton last night : pushing this ludicrous non story as if he was Carl fecking Bernstein in the making - embarassing, patrician plonker of the first order, with a nasty little agenda to boot, of course.
 
No it isn't.

But I would prefer a Tory government to a NuLabor government, because I think NuLabor would do worse things than the Tories. It wasn't the Tories who invaded Iraq.

In the USA it's called "Nixon-to-China Syndrome." The idea being that only a politician who is labeled as "right-wing" could get away with doing something so apparently "left-wing" as opening relations with Red China. And vice versa, obviously--Bill Clinton's abolition of welfare and promotion of mass incarceration being a good example. The Republicans would never have got away with that, but Clinton did because dafties thought he was a "liberal."
Wait, what? You'd prefer the current Tories to the current Labour? The Tories voted with Blair didn't they? They weren't against the invasion.

As shit as either choice is, surely it is demonstrably worse to vote Tory! :O

Look at what they've done!
 
Wait, what? You'd prefer the current Tories to the current Labour? The Tories voted with Blair didn't they? They weren't against the invasion.

As shit as either choice is, surely it is demonstrably worse to vote Tory! :O

Look at what they've done!

For the most part all they've done is intensify Blairism for a post-2008 era. The same elements of the Labour party now in open revolt either actively voted with them, or refused to get in the way. How short people's memories are about the way in which successive elections have been characterised as "you can't fit a fag paper between them."
 

Eagle's name put forward in a piece he gave to camera.

Obviously we shall see soon enough if the notion of a unity anti-Corby candidate has any basis in reality, however if it is being discussed and briefed to the BBC it might suggest a recognition that they face two separate problems : first dumping Corbyn, second dealing with the subsequent internal shitstorm a 'successful' challenger would face. In one scenario Eagle or whoever would be the sacrificial goat and, if successful in defeating Corbyn, act as a lightning rod for anger before a subsequent contest elected the 'real' cunt.

Might also be that some 'contenders' would prefer to remain in opposition while the process of defining what the fuck 'leave' the EU means is being laid on the rest of us.
 
Obviously we shall see soon enough if the notion of a unity anti-Corby candidate has any basis in reality, however if it is being discussed and briefed to the BBC it might suggest a recognition that they face two separate problems : first dumping Corbyn, second dealing with the subsequent internal shitstorm a 'successful' challenger would face. In one scenario Eagle or whoever would be the sacrificial goat and, if successful in defeating Corbyn, act as a lightning rod for anger before a subsequent contest elected the 'real' cunt...

Or the stalking eagle...
 
THE EAGLE HAS MANDIED

traitor-mandleson-2.jpg
 
Wait, what? You'd prefer the current Tories to the current Labour? The Tories voted with Blair didn't they? They weren't against the invasion.

That's not the point. The point is that the Tories couldn't have swung public opinion behind the invasion. Everyone would have said: "typical imperialist Tories at it again, bugger off." But because it was Blair, still supposed to be a liberal at that point, everyone thought: "hmmm... well if even this Left-wing person thinks it's a good idea, there must be something to it."

That scenario has been repeated numerous times over the last ten years or so. So yes, I very much would prefer the Tories to NuLabor.
 
That's not the point. The point is that the Tories couldn't have swung public opinion behind the invasion. Everyone would have said: "typical imperialist Tories at it again, bugger off." But because it was Blair, still supposed to be a liberal at that point, everyone thought: "hmmm... well if even this Left-wing person thinks it's a good idea, there must be something to it."

That scenario has been repeated numerous times over the last ten years or so. So yes, I very much would prefer the Tories to NuLabor.
THat's not much of a reason. Blair is not in power now, Corbyn is, for now at least, in charge. I don't see the current Labour party getting away with things like the Bedroom Tax, for example. Sure they tightened the thumbscrews on the poor, but nothing in thirteen years like what this lot has done in 6.

I think that difference in degree, if you're offering a choice that's either Tory or Labour, is important.
 
Back
Top Bottom