Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Jeremy Corbyn's time is up

Brainaddict said:
Not sure what you think he should be doing then. I assume the strategy is to wait for Brexit, wait for the economic impacts to really bite, at which point both remainers and brexiteers are likely to be angry with the Tories, then try and go for the proper no confidence votes and so on. Not sure May is relevant to any wider strategy tbh. She's always been a placeholder.

Edit: Do you think he should have tried to get in to negotiate a better deal on Brexit? The EU sees itself as a club with membership benefits, so it needs to be make sure that those leaving are seen to have dis-benefits. There was never going to be a 'good deal'. Not negotiated by Labour or anyone.
Click to expand...

I think he should be focused on removing the right wing Labour MP's that will never support him and on getting an election primarily. If he is actually thinking "wait for the economic pain" then that's disgraceful we have plenty of economic pain already and we can't afford to wait. It's become a bit irrelevant now, but yes, I think he should have posed it as allowing Labour to negotiate a deal - he might have had more luck than May for example if he wasn't insisting free movement in any form must end. He could also have put forward a socialist plan for no deal - which if you think about it would be the perfect scenario in which to raise nationalising banks and big business.

I think he's a placeholder now. Perhaps May always has been as you say.
 
SpackleFrog said:
I think he should be focused on removing the right wing Labour MP's that will never support him and on getting an election primarily. If he is actually thinking "wait for the economic pain" then that's disgraceful we have plenty of economic pain already and we can't afford to wait. It's become a bit irrelevant now, but yes, I think he should have posed it as allowing Labour to negotiate a deal - he might have had more luck than May for example if he wasn't insisting free movement in any form must end. He could also have put forward a socialist plan for no deal - which if you think about it would be the perfect scenario in which to raise nationalising banks and big business.

I think he's a placeholder now. Perhaps May always has been as you say.
Click to expand...
Until recently, the strategy DID appear to be that: force a VoNC, then fight an election on the basis that Labour could renegotiate a better deal than May had got.

Not sure how realistic that is now, if it ever was...
 
SpackleFrog said:
I think he should be focused on removing the right wing Labour MP's that will never support him and on getting an election primarily. If he is actually thinking "wait for the economic pain" then that's disgraceful we have plenty of economic pain already and we can't afford to wait. It's become a bit irrelevant now, but yes, I think he should have posed it as allowing Labour to negotiate a deal - he might have had more luck than May for example if he wasn't insisting free movement in any form must end. He could also have put forward a socialist plan for no deal - which if you think about it would be the perfect scenario in which to raise nationalising banks and big business.

I think he's a placeholder now. Perhaps May always has been as you say.
Click to expand...
The left of the party very much has been focussing on getting rid of right wing Labour MPs, but it takes time. That's one reason Corbyn has been in no hurry to have another election. The longer he waits, the less right wing Labour MPs he'll have to put up with in parliament.

The other reason he's in no hurry is, as I say, that there was never any such thing as a good deal. The economic pain would have come whoever negotiated it, so he's not being heartless in letting it happen. It was a choice of it happening under May or him.

As for a socialist plan for no deal, I think I'd have to see the details of that before I believed in it as a thing, but of course it wouldn't have been possible because JC as prime minister right now would be in absolutely no position to form a socialist government (see point 1, above).
 
cantsin said:
except that there seems to have been just as many 'pro lip readers' saying he deffo said ' people', and if you look at the slowed down footage, it v much looks like he's pursing his lips .... so you can either accept their view / and Corbyn's lifelong record of not saying shit like that, or not, but pretending there's any open and shut case here that somehow changes what Cotbyn is / isn't, or how he'll be viewed going fwd, is just silly Daily Maily type bollocks
Click to expand...
Nonsense.
 
andysays said:
Until recently, the strategy DID appear to be that: force a VoNC, then fight an election on the basis that Labour could renegotiate a better deal than May had got.

Not sure how realistic that is now, if it ever was...
Click to expand...

For it to be realistic it needed to be combined with building a movement for an election and a Corbyn govt, and a campaign to transform the Labour Party. On it's own, as you say...
 
Brainaddict said:
The left of the party very much has been focussing on getting rid of right wing Labour MPs, but it takes time. That's one reason Corbyn has been in no hurry to have another election. The longer he waits, the less right wing Labour MPs he'll have to put up with in parliament.

The other reason he's in no hurry is, as I say, that there was never any such thing as a good deal. The economic pain would have come whoever negotiated it, so he's not being heartless in letting it happen. It was a choice of it happening under May or him.

As for a socialist plan for no deal, I think I'd have to see the details of that before I believed in it as a thing, but of course it wouldn't have been possible because JC as prime minister right now would be in absolutely no position to form a socialist government (see point 1, above).
Click to expand...

I'm sorry for not expressing myself in more considered terms, but that is complete and utter bollocks.

It doesn't take time to get rid of right wing MP's who won't support the leadership. If automatic re-selection had been brought in two years ago it would be done already. I am tired of hearing excuses from the Labour left. It's all "we know what we're doing", "we have to be patient", "Jezza's playing the long game." The labour left had a historic opportunity to do something positive here and they haven't just not done it, they've shat the fucking bed and now they're acting like it's someone elses fault.

We should be completely clear about this: If Corbyn is biding his time then he's an idiot because he's giving the Labour right more time to remove him and remove him they will, and he's a charlatan because he pretends to care about the horrific immiseration of the working class taking place under this Tory govt but in fact he's waiting to do something about it.

Honestly, what kind of idiot could look at this rapidly shifting political landscape and think "I'll just wait patiently, soon conditions will be optimal for victory!"
 
The left tried to push automatic reselection through at conference this year, and were still unsuccessful. The idea that they might have been able to do it two years ago, before they had such a grip on the party is fanciful to say the least.

You don't seem very clued up on internal Labour politics SpackleFrog - perhaps you should avoid dismissing other people's posts on the topic as bollocks with that in mind.
 
Brainaddict said:
The other reason he's in no hurry is, as I say, that there was never any such thing as a good deal. The economic pain would have come whoever negotiated it, so he's not being heartless in letting it happen. It was a choice of it happening under May or him.

As for a socialist plan for no deal, I think I'd have to see the details of that before I believed in it as a thing, but of course it wouldn't have been possible because JC as prime minister right now would be in absolutely no position to form a socialist government (see point 1, above).
Click to expand...

You are talking gibberish. For at least 5 reasons:

1. There has been no attempt by Labour to set out, campaign for, argue for and build confidence in a set of ideas post exit. Or to counterpose those ideas to the ideas of the competing wings of the Tory Party. If you think a future tied to the EU single market is really the summit of aspirations, or if you think the flaccid 6 tests of Starmer forms the basis of anything, then we might as well pack up now.
2. The idea that 'economic pain' is inevitable post Brexit has been debated at length on here recently. Your throw away assertion just isn't good enough. I don't accept it in any case but at the very least you need to offer up some evidence (preferably not supplied by captains of industry).
3. If we accept your point as true however what sort of 'socialist' knowingly sits back and waits for the 'pain' on the basis that it might be electorally advantageous? Either you are wrong - or he's a twat - on that basis.
4. There is a perfectly plausible set of arguments for a left no deal and exist on WTO terms. I cam summarise them if you want but I would advise you to read this and have a think: Costas Lapavitsas: Socialism starts at home
5. If Corbyn had set out a radical set of ideas, had campaigned for them, had mobilised popular support for them, had got Momentum out arguing for it across the country etc then a) he would be miles ahead in the polls by now at the very least and b) given the civil war in the Tory party would be in a much stronger position to win a no confidence vote.

The failure to do the above will haunt Corbyn and the social democrat let much longer than calling May a stupid women.
 
killer b said:
The left tried to push automatic reselection through at conference this year, and were still unsuccessful. The idea that they might have been able to do it two years ago, before they had such a grip on the party is fanciful to say the least.

You don't seem very clued up on internal Labour politics SpackleFrog - perhaps you should avoid dismissing other people's posts on the topic as bollocks with that in mind.
Click to expand...

I think I'm clued up enough ta.
 
Smokeandsteam said:
2. The idea that 'economic pain' is inevitable post Brexit has been debated at length on here recently. Your throw away assertion just isn't good enough. I don't accept it in any case but at the very least you need to offer up some evidence (preferably not supplied by captains of industry).
Click to expand...
Is this okay?

Jacob Rees-Mogg Says It Could Take 50 Years To Reap The Benefits Of Brexit
Smokeandsteam said:
5. If Corbyn had set out a radical set of ideas, had campaigned for them, had mobilised popular support for them, had got Momentum out arguing for it across the country etc then a) he would be miles ahead in the polls by now at the very least and b) given the civil war in the Tory party would be in a much stronger position to win a no confidence vote.
The failure to do the above will haunt Corbyn and the social democrat let much longer than calling May a stupid women.
Click to expand...
No chance of that happening for so many reasons, the main one being is it wouldnt have achieved what you dream it wouldve - the opposite in fact. Its not going to haunt anyone, it was an impossibility.
 
killer b said:
but you seem to think the left have some sort of total grip of the reins of power in the Labour Party, and have done for two years. This is - to coin a term - complete and utter bollocks.
Click to expand...

Given that you seem to be clued up (and I agree with your position) to what extent do you attribute the total pish that is Labour's position on Brexit to the ongoing internal power struggle?
 
Smokeandsteam said:
Given that you seem to be clued up (and I agree with your position) to what extent do you attribute the total pish that is Labour's position on Brexit to the ongoing internal power struggle?
Click to expand...
Labour's position on brexit's only real purpose is to hold together a very fragile electoral coalition of supporters and members from across the spectrum of very strong remain to very strong leave. They judge - I think probably correctly - that any attempt in the last year to shift significantly on this in one direction or the other would have seen this coalition collapse.

If the leadership had attempted to take the party in an explicit full-blooded lexit direction I think there actually would have been a split - certainly the strong remain support would have gone elsewhere. Had they gone for strong remain, and they lose swathes of the Labour heartlands.

While a more explicit policy in one or the other direction might have meant they could provide better opposition on Brexit in parliament, electorally they would have been fucked. The tories would have called another election cleaned up and then pushed through whatever brexit they pleased.
 
ska invita said:
eh? you asked about someones economic forecast. Theres one from one of the most adrent supporters of brexit.
Click to expand...

I asked 'Brain Addict' to evidence his argument that 'economic pain is inevitable' post Brexit not from the representatives of the ruling class/m,embers of it. Can you see why there is a massive issue with supposed socialists quoting guff from twats like Rees Mogg, Blair etc? Can you see how this is narrowing the debate? How this boxes us all in to debating it on their terms?
 
killer b said:
but you seem to think the left have some sort of total grip of the reins of power in the Labour Party, and have done for two years. This is - to coin a term - complete and utter bollocks.
Click to expand...

You didn't coin a term you just nicked mine! :eek::mad:

I don't at all think the left have any sort of grip on the reigns of power. Obviously bringing automatic reselection for example would have required a massive struggle.

Problem is though, what the Labour left have tried to do is to avoid any kind of struggle. It's been 3 and a half years of constant retreats, compromises and hesitations - all wrapped up in the language of "we're biding our time and playing the long game".

What has been the result of that? Corbyn is now in a weaker position that at any time since he was first elected leader in spite of how well Labour did in the GE last year.
 
killer b said:
Labour's position on brexit's only real purpose is to hold together a very fragile electoral coalition of supporters and members from across the spectrum of very strong remain to very strong leave. They judge - I think probably correctly - that any attempt in the last year to shift significantly on this in one direction or the other would have seen this coalition collapse.

If the leadership had attempted to take the party in an explicit full-blooded lexit direction I think there actually would have been a split - certainly the strong remain support would have gone elsewhere. Had they gone for strong remain, and they lose swathes of the Labour heartlands.

While a more explicit policy in one or the other direction might have meant they could provide better opposition on Brexit in parliament, electorally they would have been fucked. The tories would have called another election cleaned up and then pushed through whatever brexit they pleased.
Click to expand...

I agree that Labour's Brexit 'position' is designed to hold everything together and nothing more. But there is no coalition to hold together. You say this is worth doing because the party will split but how does it now avoid a split?

I disagree that they would have been fucked electorally - especially since the snap GE and the state of May's govt ever since. But it's sort of irrelevant unless there's going to be an election any time soon. I don't want to say an election is impossible but we will have to pull our finger out pretty sharpish.
 
[QUOTE="killer b, post: 15854621, member: 2066"If the leadership had attempted to take the party in an explicit full-blooded lexit direction I think there actually would have been a split - certainly the strong remain support would have gone elsewhere. Had they gone for strong remain, and they lose swathes of the Labour heartlands.

While a more explicit policy in one or the other direction might have meant they could provide better opposition on Brexit in parliament, electorally they would have been fucked. The tories would have called another election cleaned up and then pushed through whatever brexit they pleased.[/QUOTE]

I think that's probably right in terms of the thinking and dynamics within the party but for the reasons I won't bore you with again its a massive error of judgement and missed opportunity. It's left the two administrative wings of the ruling class free reign to own the debate.
 
killer b said:
Why do you think Corbyn is in a weak position? With whom?
Click to expand...

In his party. He'll be under constant pressure to call a VoNC when May's deal fails. He looks like an idiot if he doesn't and if he does and it passes he'll look an even bigger idiot when he can't form a govt.
 
SpackleFrog said:
In his party. He'll be under constant pressure to call a VoNC when May's deal fails. He looks like an idiot if he doesn't and if he does and it passes he'll look an even bigger idiot when he can't form a govt.
Click to expand...
How so? There is no way Labour can make a majority in this parliament. Tory plus DUP numbers prevent that. So the VoNC wouldn't be called under the illusion that Labour could form a govt, and nor would it need to be. It would be called to bring this govt down and force an election.

I think it's hard to judge exactly how things will play out once May's deal has been voted down. I suspect that a lot more things will suddenly seem possible.
 
Smokeandsteam said:
I asked 'Brain Addict' to evidence his argument that 'economic pain is inevitable' post Brexit not from the representatives of the ruling class/m,embers of it. Can you see why there is a massive issue with supposed socialists quoting guff from twats like Rees Mogg, Blair etc? Can you see how this is narrowing the debate? How this boxes us all in to debating it on their terms?
Click to expand...
ah I misunderstood...you're asking for a positive economic forecast for a socialist brexit that doesnt exist?
Okay, let me get a pen and a fag packet....

IF a Lexit was ever on the agenda this might be a conversation worth having. It never was. People who said I cant support a Brexit led by the extreme right were told to vote for it anyway - It'll all be worth it. Not economically, not in the short term, not in the mid term necesasarily, but in the long run. Thats a fair argument.
Everything else is just wishful thinking alternate realities. Ive got lots of those too.
 
ska invita said:
ah I misunderstood...you're asking for a positive economic forecast for a socialist brexit that doesnt exist?
Click to expand...

No, I'm not asking for that. I'm asking for a progressive analysis - not glib shite like your post or arguments that flow from the two sections of the capitalist class - that sets out why remaining in the single market is a) progressive and b) avoids economic pain
 
Smokeandsteam said:
No, I'm not asking for that. I'm asking for a progressive analysis - not glib shite like your post or arguments that flow from the two sections of the capitalist class - that sets out why remaining in the single market is a) progressive and b) avoids economic pain
Click to expand...
All that needs to be argued is that leaving the single market like this causes economic pain and brings no progressive benefit. That's the argument against leaving the EU like this. You may want to leave in a very different way, in which case you could set out its benefits, but you have to admit that your alternative brexit isn't going to happen so it's not really directly relevant when considering the pros and cons of the various brexits that can happen.

Staying in the EU isn't an answer to many problems other than to say that leaving the EU in this nationalist, xenophobic manner just makes all those problems worse. How to tackle transforming Britain (and the wider world) into a better place is a whole separate argument once you've judged that the first step isn't a rightwing brexit.
 
Smokeandsteam said:
No, I'm not asking for that. I'm asking for a progressive analysis - not glib shite like your post or arguments that flow from the two sections of the capitalist class - that sets out why remaining in the single market is a) progressive and b) avoids economic pain
Click to expand...
Okay i misunderstood a second time. Thats fair enough. Apologies
 
killer b said:
There has been a significant struggle going on within the party btw, no-one is biding their time or playing the long game.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying anyone is biding their time or playing the long game but that seems to be what you're saying?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Kemi Badenoch’s time is up!
4 5 6 7 8
Replies
239
Views
8K
Lotte
L
krtek a houby
King William’s time is up
Replies
7
Views
650
PR1Berske
PR1Berske
tim
Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby's time is up.
2 3 4
Replies
115
Views
4K
weltweit
weltweit
Kid_Eternity
David Lammy’s time is up
Replies
12
Views
883
brogdale
brogdale
Larry O'Hara
Chancellor Rachel Reeves: Her Time Is Up!
8 9 10 11 12
Replies
342
Views
14K
rasputin
R
Back
Top Bottom