Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Jeremy Corbyn's time is up

No but it was Corbyn who leads a party where this was allowed to happen. Effective leaders lead United parties.

It could have been literally anyone leading Labour from the left, they'd still have faced mass rebellion and been battered with every weapon the right had to hand. It's an ideological split manifesting as a struggle over the leadership, not a personality problem. How you can womble around acting like the big political guru when you still haven't incorporated this very simple point into your arguments - even having had it explained to you when you made a dick of yourself on here last time - is baffling.
 
I think he put them there because they are allies.

Oh right so only because they are allies...because that stands out about this right, other parties/leaders do something completely different? :facepalm:

These aren't double standards they are fucking quadrupled, with knobs on.
 
Last edited:
Not impressed with your post at all. If it's a roundabout way of labelling me racist, incidentally, go fuck yourself.

I don't post to impress you. I asked a question and if I thought you were a racist I would outright call you one, so incidentially, fuck yourself right back. :)

If you don't like being questioned or asked to explain be clearer? ...I'll now go back and read your explanation... and think about whether you are a fucking arsehole or not. :cool:
 
Last edited:
Oh right so only because they are allies...because that stands out about this right, other parties/leaders do something completely different? :facepalm:

These are double standards they are fucking quadrupled, with knobs on.

What are you on about? You asked if I thought they were put there to hit some sort of diversity goal - I said no I think they were there because they were allies. Everything else you've created on your own.
 
I don't post to impress you. I asked a question and if I thought you were a racist I would outright call you one, so incidentially, fuck yourself right back back. :)

If you don't like being questioned or asked to explain be clearer? ...I'll now go back and read your explanation... and think about whether you are a fucking arsehole or not. :cool:
Having the strangest sensation of déja vu with jm
 
Oh, so hang on. From Pickman we have the point that significantly divided parties can be led effectively by, say, Thatcher. OK, point taken. Then from the Mr McGregor, we are told, the party was so split nobody could have done it...a post which Pickman goes on to recommend.
And I'm mixed up?
Get your fuckin stories straight...you have until Sunday. I'm going to Ullswater.
 
Oh, so hang on. From Pickman we have the point that significantly divided parties can be led effectively by, say, Thatcher. OK, point taken. Then from the Mr McGregor, we are told, the party was so split nobody could have done it...a post which Pickman goes on to recommend.
And I'm mixed up?
Get your fuckin stories straight...you have until Sunday. I'm going to Ullswater.
I have recommended no posts
 
It could have been literally anyone leading Labour from the left, they'd still have faced mass rebellion and been battered with every weapon the right had to hand. It's an ideological split manifesting as a struggle over the leadership, not a personality problem. <snip>

The nature of the propaganda attack though, is to avoid engaging with the mass support for a move to the left and to drag the battle onto more favourable territory of personality contests and/or identity politics.
 
What are you on about? You asked if I thought they were put there to hit some sort of diversity goal - I said no I think they were there because they were allies. Everything else you've created on your own.

Perhaps then you should have a little review at the ways in which you are making decisions about what JC is doing and why as opposed to those you accept other party leaders do and why.

Allies? Of course they fucking are..that's normal! :facepalm:

Odd with regards, DA? How can you say that given we see the likes of BJ being given the FS position.

Your standards are quadrupled, I don't know why.
 
The nature of the propaganda attack though, is to avoid engaging with the mass support for left policies and to drag the battle onto more favourable territory of personality contests and/or identity politics.

They've engaged with both afaics, as befits a no-holds-barred approach. They've not been shy of saying his economic, defence, labour progreammes etc are irrelevant 70s-era throwbacks at best and actively dangerous to Britain's sovereignty at worst. Hell for months before they went after him for being "arrogant" etc that'd been saying what a nice guy he was, it's just his ideals which were unworkable.
 
Perhaps then you should have a little review at the ways in which you are making decisions about what JC is doing and why as opposed to those you accept other party leaders do and why.

Allies? Of course they fucking are..that's normal! :facepalm:

Odd with regards, DA? How can you say that given we see the likes of BJ being given the FS position.

Your standards are quadrupled, I don't know why.

Still no idea what you're cross about.
 
Yeah, I edited a bit because 'policies' wasn't quite what I thought they didn't want to engage with, more the mass rejection of 'business as usual'
 
The Chakribati thing hasn't damaged Corbyn, its damaged her - which damages Labours ability to attack the government given that she'll be the one doing the attacking.

She had credibility because she acted in a non-partisan way as director of Liberty - she did a good job and held governments of both colours to account. However, whether a deal was done or not, by doing an 'independant' report for Corbyn which exonerates him, then immediately accepts a peerage from him, and then joins his SC she has completely shot her own fox - she might get a hearing (when arguing against X or Y legal measure the government wishes to bring in...) in the Morning Star, but to every other media organisation she's a complete joke.

Not only can her integrity be criticised, but it seems obvious that she has the political nous of a mouldy sponge...
 
Convenient dismissal of the obvious points I have made.

Because you didn't ask me what other leaders do, you asked if I thought they'd been put there to hit a diversity target which I said no - you've inferred everything else all by yourself so I'll leave you to it.
 
The Chakribati thing hasn't damaged Corbyn, its damaged her - which damages Labours ability to attack the government given that she'll be the one doing the attacking.

She had credibility because she acted in a non-partisan way as director of Liberty - she did a good job and held governments of both colours to account. However, whether a deal was done or not, by doing an 'independant' report for Corbyn which exonerates him, then immediately accepts a peerage from him, and then joins his SC she has completely shot her own fox - she might get a hearing (when arguing against X or Y legal measure the government wishes to bring in...) in the Morning Star, but to every other media organisation she's a complete joke.

Not only can her integrity be criticised, but it seems obvious that she has the political nous of a mouldy sponge...


^ this

I have great respect for her but she joined the party to write a report on anti-Semitism which not a single Jewish group have endorsed, then be made a peer and promoted to the front bench in under six months - the optics on it are piss poor.
 
some folk are missing the obvious here- he tried the route of keeping his enemies close and they just used it as a weakness to exploit in getting rid. So who else other than allies can he call in to his shadow cabinet? The people who did a staged series of resignations and then stood two (insultingly) shit people as challengers to his leadership? What political nous would that show then?
 
Because you didn't ask me what other leaders do, you asked if I thought they'd been put there to hit a diversity target which I said no - you've inferred everything else all by yourself so I'll leave you to it.

I gave examples that challenged your assumptions/expectations which you gave in reply to my original question regarding 'cynical diversity appointments'. So you don't agree with JM, but saying 'they are allies' or 'it's odd' doesn't seem very fair...given what we know and have to accept other leaders/politicians etc routinely do.
 
Last edited:
some folk are missing the obvious here- he tried the route of keeping his enemies close and they just used it as a weakness to exploit in getting rid. So who else other than allies can he call in to his shadow cabinet? The people who did a staged series of resignations and then stood two (insultingly) shit people as challengers to his leadership? What political nous would that show then?

That's a fair point a this point, the PLP need to like it or lump it at this point. In this case letting JC pick the team he wants and ride them to victory or defeat would seem the best route.
 
some folk are missing the obvious here- he tried the route of keeping his enemies close and they just used it as a weakness to exploit in getting rid. So who else other than allies can he call in to his shadow cabinet? The people who did a staged series of resignations and then stood two (insultingly) shit people as challengers to his leadership? What political nous would that show then?

But the fact that he has to bring in someone unelected and very recently ennobled like SC demonstrates that he doesn't actually have enough allies within the PLP to form a shadow cabinet, or can be used to make that argument, even if it's not literally true.

It's an indication of his continuing weakness, despite having won the leadership election, and it will be used against him by his enemies both in and out of the LP.
 
But the fact that he has to bring in someone unelected and very recently ennobled like SC demonstrates that he doesn't actually have enough allies within the PLP to form a shadow cabinet, or can be used to make that argument, even if it's not literally true.

It's an indication of his continuing weakness, despite having won the leadership election, and it will be used against him by his enemies both in and out of the LP.
oh anything will be used. Thought occured to me to wonder if there are any nuetrals in the PLP at all, keeping the head down wait it all out see what happens come 2020. Surely there must be some
 
From recall an opposition needs about 100 shadows to roughly keep abreast of most of what a government is doing on a day-to-day basis, and more if it wants to be able to challenge the government on a broad range of fronts with any degree of detailed knowledge and not get shown up by having completely missed something important.

Corbyn, it appears, simply can't get anywhere near this number because people just won't work for him (and given how his ally Clive Lewis was treated at conference, would you?). Regardless of how many of the Party members like him, he simply can't do the job of leading the opposition - he is the problem (not labours only problem by any stretch).
 
From recall an opposition needs about 100 shadows to roughly keep abreast of most of what a government is doing on a day-to-day basis, and more if it wants to be able to challenge the government on a broad range of fronts with any degree of detailed knowledge and not get shown up by having completely missed something important.

Corbyn, it appears, simply can't get anywhere near this number because people just won't work for him (and given how his ally Clive Lewis was treated at conference, would you?). Regardless of how many of the Party members like him, he simply can't do the job of leading the opposition - he is the problem (not labours only problem by any stretch).
the problem is that the labour mps see having a ruck with the newly elected leader as preferable to representing the millions of people who voted for them. they are exposing what democracy really means in this country, more effectively that anything the tories have as yet done.
 
From recall an opposition needs about 100 shadows to roughly keep abreast of most of what a government is doing on a day-to-day basis, and more if it wants to be able to challenge the government on a broad range of fronts with any degree of detailed knowledge and not get shown up by having completely missed something important.

Corbyn, it appears, simply can't get anywhere near this number because people just won't work for him (and given how his ally Clive Lewis was treated at conference, would you?). Regardless of how many of the Party members like him, he simply can't do the job of leading the opposition - he is the problem (not labours only problem by any stretch).

Would the same people work for a different reasonably honest, mildly left-wing leader who was acceptable to the mass of new joiners and re-energised supporters?

I'd bet they'd give any equivalent leader just as much shit as they're giving Corbyn.
 
Back
Top Bottom