Jeremy Corbyn's time is up

[Smokeandsteam]

Or he's not going to be considered the most left wing in the 115 yrs of the Party's existence?

This is a regular line I hear - and not just from SWSS members flogging their paper in town. It’s revealing because as others have said economically Corbyn and McDonnell are a long way short of the ambition of previous labour oppositions in respect of intervention and state activity in the economy. There is good reason for this and, frankly given the last 40 years, McDonnell has done a pretty good job to even get social democracy back in the game.

On internationalism Corbyn is definitely the most overt labour leader in history signed up to the ‘anti imperialism of fools’ that seeks alliances based on crude anti Americanism, and the first since Foot to properly emerge from the middle class new left movement of the 60’s.

 

[two sheds]

This is a regular line I hear - and not just from SWSS members flogging their paper in town. It’s revealing because as others have said economically Corbyn and McDonnell are a long way short of the ambition of previous labour oppositions in respect of intervention and state activity in the economy. There is good reason for this and, frankly given the last 40 years, McDonnell has done a pretty good job to even get social democracy back in the game.

Indeed, because the country is a lot more right wing now than it used to be. If he does what he's saying he'll do then he'll be moving it much further leftwards than anyone else since WW2 and introduction of the Post-War Social Contract. And whether or not he is more left wing, I'd say he's "considered" a lot more left wing as cantsin said.

On internationalism Corbyn is definitely the most overt labour leader in history signed up to the ‘anti imperialism of fools’ that seeks alliances based on crude anti Americanism, and the first since Foot to properly emerge from the middle class new left movement of the 60’s.

Which alliances do you mean? I've seen similar remarks about Chomsky for (for example) criticizing America more than Russia for bombing of Syria but I think Chomsky would say that (a) he's giving some balance because everyone criticizes their opponents' actions but gives allies a free pass and (b) he's not actually in favour of *anyone* bombing Syria because the history of the west's bombing people has been almost universally counterproductive, and we should instead cut off the flow of arms.

 

[two sheds]

if you know what's going to happen next week, in political terms, let alone over the next 4 yrs, I bow to your greater wisdom and foresight. as no one else anywhere has a clue, or is even pretending to.

Well indeed, but on those terms you could criticize any of the posts in this thread that makes a prediction. I should have said "unless something major changes" but I'd have thought that was obvious.

 

[two sheds]

Regardless of the context this is a foolish statement to make in the present circumstances.

Why's that again? You think Corbyn will go before the next election? Or he's not going to be considered the most left wing in the 115 yrs of the Party's existence, or that the media and PLP attacks will stop?

 

[Smokeandsteam]

Indeed, because the country is a lot more right wing now than it used to be. If he does what he's saying he'll do then he'll be moving it much further leftwards than anyone else since WW2 and introduction of the Post-War Social Contract. And whether or not he is more left wing, I'd say he's "considered" a lot more left wing as cantsin said.



Which alliances do you mean? I've seen similar remarks about Chomsky for (for example) criticizing America more than Russia for bombing of Syria but I think Chomsky would say that (a) he's giving some balance because everyone criticizes their opponents' actions but gives allies a free pass and (b) he's not actually in favour of *anyone* bombing Syria because the history of the west's bombing people has been almost universally counterproductive, and we should instead cut off the flow of arms.

I think on point one that's not the way to think of it. A better way is to present the manifesto is as a break of a 40 year period of neo-liberalism ideas and economics that all parties and senior representatives of the political class helped to construct a narrative of inevitability around. That is far more significant than the welcome but limited programme of social democracy proposed.

On the second point I am suggesting a wider point than specific alliance which can best described as a tendency to endorse dubious ideas/groups/states/regimes under the guise of 'solidarity'. It's not actually anti-imperialism in any meaningful sense of the word.

 

[two sheds]

I think on point one that's not the way to think of it. A better way is to present the manifesto is as a break of a 40 year period of neo-liberalism ideas and economics that all parties and senior representatives of the political class helped to construct a narrative of inevitability around. That is far more significant than the welcome but limited programme of social democracy proposed.

Apart from the last sentence I'd agree. And yes it's a limited programme of social democracy being proposed, but even that limited programme is going to make a large difference to the conditions people live in. That's the *most* significant point.

On the second point I am suggesting a wider point than specific alliance which can best described as a tendency to endorse dubious ideas/groups/states/regimes under the guise of 'solidarity'. It's not actually anti-imperialism in any meaningful sense of the word.

I think I've seen him in the past saying that he's talking to dubious groups because you need to talk to your enemies, not just demonize them as tends to be done in the west. I can't see him agreeing with their repressive actions - he just believes that talking to them is a better way of trying to have them change. But yes he may well be deluded in this.

 

[Shechemite]

https://twitter.com/antiracismday/status/1074031867458977793?s=21

 

[Shechemite]

Maybe he misses the wreath?

 

[Poi E]

I personally think Corbyn is too shrewd to make any waves at this point.

You mean he displays the political opportunism of his opponents, and won't actually formulate policy?

 

[agricola]

You mean he displays the political opportunism of his opponents, and won't actually formulate policy?

Not really; in fact there is a lot more thought behind his policy than the Peoples Vote crowd are displaying (not least the fact that he recognizes that this Government shouldn't be left in charge of a half-eaten chip bap, never mind a referendum that will be far more bitterly fought than the last one was).

 

[hash tag]

Emily Thornberry has certainly hit the news with her black widow speech today

 

[hash tag]

He's done it, he's finally tabled a no confidence motion. Not sure what good it will do.

 

[brogdale]

He's done it, he's finally tabled a no confidence motion. Not sure what good it will do.

None whatsoever wrt to May, but politically astute...especially if she prevents the debate. Even worse 'optics' as they say there days.

 

[Rob Ray]

I can't imagine as a PM with most of a full term on the clock, a year in hand before her position can be challenged and full backing from her own side on the specific issue of "do we hand over control to Jeremy Corbyn" that she'd give a single solitary fuck. Some of the more excitable Corbynistas will be creaming themselves merrily this evening though no doubt.

 

[Puddy_Tat]

Suggestion on radio news is that government have responded along the lines of 'if you want to propose a proper VoNC in the government then go for it, otherwise sod off'

All fairly silly really - the numbers for a proper VoNC aren't there at the moment, and as I see it, would only be there if the DUP seriously fell out with the tories, which hasn't happened yet.

And then questionable unless a few rabid tory leavers / remainers would vote with labour (as I can see a few 'labour' MPs voting with government rather than risking a Corbyn led government.)

Pretty much a win - win for JC's opponents (both inside the labour party and otherwise) - raise expectations of a VoNC, then criticise Corbyn if he didn't go for it, and criticise him if he did and lost...

 

[agricola]

I can't imagine as a PM with most of a full term on the clock, a year in hand before her position can be challenged and full backing from her own side on the specific issue of "do we hand over control to Jeremy Corbyn" that she'd give a single solitary fuck. Some of the more excitable Corbynistas will be creaming themselves merrily this evening though no doubt.

Her position as PM could be challenged tomorrow; all it would require is for a sufficient number of Tory MPs to not vote with the Government until she is removed and they would have no other option than to replace her as PM.

As for Tory unity on this issue; well yes, though I hope that should finally make the #FBPE types realise that the Tory Remainers - Soubry, Grieve, Morgan, Johnson minor etc - are Tories long before they are Remainers.

 

[Rob Ray]

Could but won't. Why would they? What's in it for Tory MPs to bring down a Tory government at the worst possible moment? Labour's not pulling for hard Brexit, it's not calling for a peepholes vote and most importantly, it's Labour. Under Jeremy Corbyn.

 

[Supine]

For once I think jez had made the right decision. The no confidence in the government can only potentially work if her deal gets voted down. It does labor no harm to do a no confidence in TM at the moment even if it goes nowhere.

 

[agricola]

Could but won't. Why would they? What's in it for Tory MPs to bring down a Tory government at the worst possible moment? Labour's not pulling for hard Brexit, it's not calling for a peepholes vote and most importantly, it's Labour. Under Jeremy Corbyn.

Tory MPs will never vote to bring down a Tory government though, either directly through a vote of no confidence or indirectly by agreeing something that directly contradicts party policy. FFS they even voted, by a majority of 81, that Chamberlain was the right man to lead the nation after Narvik.

It is perhaps important that Corbyn's internal enemies understand this.

 

[killer b]

Corbyns internal enemies don't want a VONC, they want a second referendum - the VONC is just a route they want closed down so they can bump him into supporting the people's vote bollocks. So they can lose that too.

 

[cantsin]

I can't imagine as a PM with most of a full term on the clock, a year in hand before her position can be challenged and full backing from her own side on the specific issue of "do we hand over control to Jeremy Corbyn" that she'd give a single solitary fuck. Some of the more excitable Corbynistas will be creaming themselves merrily this evening though no doubt.

nah

 

[andysays]

Corbyns internal enemies don't want a VONC, they want a second referendum - the VONC is just a route they want closed down so they can bump him into supporting the people's vote bollocks. So they can lose that too.

Agreed that's what they're angling for, but Corbyn coming out for a 2nd ref is pretty academic while May is still PM, so at some point they would need a VoNC to actually get their ref.

Or am I missing something?

 

[killer b]

I think they imagine if they win a vote for a second referendum in parliament, then this government will have to give them one? I'm not sure exactly how they imagine it'll work tbh. Every imaginable outcome seems to involve believing several impossible things for it to work.

 

[Raheem]

Agreed that's what they're angling for, but Corbyn coming out for a 2nd ref is pretty academic while May is still PM, so at some point they would need a VoNC to actually get their ref.

Or am I missing something?

Not sure, but if it was an amendment to the withdrawal bill, would it not then be the law?

The other side of it is that, at some point, May (or whoever) will have to do something she has sworn blind she will never do. That much is certain.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

Agreed that's what they're angling for, but Corbyn coming out for a 2nd ref is pretty academic while May is still PM, so at some point they would need a VoNC to actually get their ref.

Or am I missing something?

Nope.

Although there is the small matter of knowing what position labour would adopt on a second ref. Oh, and what question they think should be on the ballot paper in the event of one.

 

[SpackleFrog]

Tory MPs will never vote to bring down a Tory government though, either directly through a vote of no confidence or indirectly by agreeing something that directly contradicts party policy. FFS they even voted, by a majority of 81, that Chamberlain was the right man to lead the nation after Narvik.

It is perhaps important that Corbyn's internal enemies understand this.

What about if they could stop Brexit and stop Corbyn at the same time?

May's toast. They'll have no loyalty to a failure.

 

[Pickman's model]

What about if they could stop Brexit and stop Corbyn at the same time?

May's toast. They'll have no loyalty to a failure.

no future in england's dreaming

 

[brogdale]

Sounds like Jez has just gifted the vermin in a manner reminiscent of Brown's bigoted woman moment.

#StupidWoman

 

[Pickman's model]

Sounds like Jez has just gifted the vermin in a manner reminiscent of Brown's bigoted woman moment.

#StupidWoman

do tell more, not everyone follows jc slavishly

 

[brogdale]

do tell more, not everyone follows jc slavishly

apols about the loathsome source:



& screenshot: