The Independent Group for Change | Have decided to disband after ten months

sun_tzu said:
Well I've given you the stated facts and that even they are not under an obligation to do so they are applying the same standards as a political party.

And of course people can question... But equally people should not just make up accusations... Like the ones that had to be withdrawn
https://amp.theguardian.com/politic...rael-funding-independent-group-luciana-berger
Click to expand...
Tbh, I hadn't even considered the notion of Israeli funding - my concern is TIG 's potential role in decreasing votes for Labour.
 
Tibs said:
Another Corbyn hater leaves - good riddance.

Will he resign his seat and trigger a by-election? Will he feck
Click to expand...

Not trying to defend him or say he shouldn't stand for re-election but how do you answer his Birmingham Council point?
 
Call Corbyn a Marxist, a terrorist, a murderer, I have no problem with it he's a big boy but flippantly punching down on BI vendors is a real silly cnut move.
 
dumbo said:
Call Corbyn a Marxist, a terrorist, a murderer, I have no problem with it he's a big boy but flippantly punching down on BI vendors is a real silly cnut move.
Click to expand...
I have nothing against BI sellers. I am suggesting that most support Labour and Corbyn and are boosted by a large a very large number of left-leaning people that now make up the majority of the membership. And that was a deliberate ploy to head off any challenges (especially from moderates) - which, judging by the people resigning the whip, has clearly worked.
 
Bola said:
Indeed. They are getting away with a legal loophole to hide their backers, while these are also hypocritical in their denial of a people's vote (by election) after they quit the party they were elected as part of.

The decent thing to do wpuld reinvest their seats and register as a political party, but that would require them to have principles
Click to expand...
Thats the plan.
 
What was Oscie banned for again?
 
Shinjch said:
Well Blair very much pandered to Murdoch and his cronies to get them onside during his run, which oviously helped him. Afraid I don't know enough about before then to comment, but would like to hear if anyone else does.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, “pandering” to the media (aka running an effective communications strategy) is part of what’s needed to run a successful electoral campaign. Complaining about unfair press coverage won’t win any votes (and sounds like Donald Trump)
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Unfortunately, “pandering” to the media (aka running an effective communications strategy) is part of what’s needed to run a successful electoral campaign. Complaining about unfair press coverage won’t win any votes (and sounds like Donald Trump)
Click to expand...
Well Trump did win the 2016 election:nervous:
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Unfortunately, “pandering” to the media (aka running an effective communications strategy) is part of what’s needed to run a successful electoral campaign. Complaining about unfair press coverage won’t win any votes (and sounds like Donald Trump)
Click to expand...
I think buddying up so much to Murdoch that he was made the godfather of his second youngest child is a bit more than an effective communications strategy. Is the alleged affair with Murdoch's wife therefore nothing more than an ineffective communications strategy?

For the sake of clarity, I don't think Corbyn gets unfair press at all. He is a useless leader at this stage. I just don't think those on the right seem to get their fair share.

Trump's strategy worked out ok for him with the voters seemingly.
 
Shinjch said:
I think buddying up so much to Murdoch that he was made the godfather of his second youngest child is a bit more than an effective communications strategy. Is the alleged affair with Murdoch's wife therefore nothing more than an ineffective communications strategy?

For the sake of clarity, I don't think Corbyn gets unfair press at all. He is a useless leader at this stage. I just don't think those on the right seem to get their fair share.

Trump's strategy worked out ok for him with the voters seemingly.
Click to expand...

I agree mainstream press is biased to the right. Especially when right wing papers seen much less conscientious about being accurate than their counterparts in more left-leaning publications. I just think it’s a lame excuse for being unelectable. It’s always been that way. And with the Tories spending most of the last few years self-harming it rings even more hollow.
 
Honest John said:
Why not? There seems to be a lot of effort around here arguing against the bleeding obvious - the the Labour leadership is Marxists and therefore unelectable which is rubbish for our democracy.
Click to expand...
You're saying the Labour leadership is Marxist and therefore unelectable. But are they any further left of centre - the true political centre and not the current British centre - than the current Tory Government is to the right of it? I don't think they are but, unfortunately, that doesn't make them unelectable
 
Pogue Mahone said:
I agree mainstream press is biased to the right. Especially when right wing papers seen much less conscientious about being accurate than their counterparts in more left-leaning publications. I just think it’s a lame excuse for being unelectable. It’s always been that way. And with the Tories spending most of the last few years self-harming it rings even more hollow.
Click to expand...
Agree on that, but what I was replying to was the statement, "One thing I don't understand is how a racist and xenophobic party like the Tories are getting off scott free."

I do think it's easier for them to get away with the issues in their party due to the leanings of the press.

I wasn't talking about Labour's electability, or lack there of. For which I think the leader and his crew are hugely culpable.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
I agree mainstream press is biased to the right. Especially when right wing papers seen much less conscientious about being accurate than their counterparts in more left-leaning publications. I just think it’s a lame excuse for being unelectable. It’s always been that way. And with the Tories spending most of the last few years self-harming it rings even more hollow.
Click to expand...

We know that the press is likely to hold the Labour leader to a higher standard than anyone else. That's obvious and not particularly controversial. We know that the press are going to hold a left wing Labour leader to an even higher standard. Again, I can't see how that's controversial.

It doesn't mean we need to defend Corbyn every single time he loads a gun, puts it against his foot and dares the press to pull the trigger, though. The problem is the sheer amount of ammunition he gives the press, as much as it is any media bias.
 
NinjaFletch said:
We know that the press is likely to hold the Labour leader to a higher standard than anyone else. That's obvious and not particularly controversial. We know that the press are going to hold a left wing Labour leader to an even higher standard. Again, I can't see how that's controversial.

It doesn't mean we need to defend Corbyn every single time he loads a gun, puts it against his foot and dares the press to pull the trigger, though. The problem is the sheer amount of ammunition he gives the press, as much as it is any media bias.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
NinjaFletch said:
We know that the press is likely to hold the Labour leader to a higher standard than anyone else. That's obvious and not particularly controversial. We know that the press are going to hold a left wing Labour leader to an even higher standard. Again, I can't see how that's controversial.

It doesn't mean we need to defend Corbyn every single time he loads a gun, puts it against his foot and dares the press to pull the trigger, though. The problem is the sheer amount of ammunition he gives the press, as much as it is any media bias.
Click to expand...
Absolutely agree.

Damien said:
Click to expand...


Complete eejit.​
 
Last edited:
sun_tzu said:
Apparently it is real... But something something Blair something something Jews something something by-election
Click to expand...

Now watch a journalist write the easy and obvious article on Corbyn’s hypocrisy that’s just landed on their lap, followed by hordes of Corbynistas wailing about how unfairly he’s treated by the MSM.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Now watch a journalist write the easy and obvious article on Corbyn’s hypocrisy that’s just landed on their lap, followed by hordes of Corbynistas wailing about how unfairly he’s treated by the MSM.
Click to expand...
The illuminati used their time machine to go back and hack his Twitter and the press are only writing about it because blair told them to...
I hope there is an election soon and labour can get back to being a credible party (after the inevitable Corbyn inspired electotal destruction ... Which of course will again apparently be Blair's fault )
 
niMic said:
Is this the Corbyn thread now? Maybe we should merge them, so sun_tzu doesn't have to WUM in two separate threads.
Click to expand...

There's nothing positive to say about TIG so we default to normal programming.
 
sun_tzu said:
Deflecting.... Hummmm I made a point about the rampant antisemitanti under his watch
You talk about war
Honest answer
Yes I can envisage circumstances under which he would go to war... He's on record having said as much as well

So back to the point... Is the growth of anti semitism under his watch which has been cited by most of the labour leavers into Tig (which is the purpose of this thread... Feel free to start another about corbyns military policy if you want) acceptable
Click to expand...

Antisemitism has not grown under Corbyn. You had the absurd from Joan Ryan this week where she said there was no antisemitism in the Labour Party until 2015, many of the tweets reported came before 2015 so she's treating people as fools

The effort being put into tarring labour as particularly antisemitic are being made now because of the change in policy on Palestine.
 
Pogue Mahone said:


Does anyone know if this is a real tweet by Jezza? Some astonishing hypocrisy going on right now, if so.
Click to expand...


It's not though, is it? What he has said in that tweet is a statement of fact. We all know that is how the electoral system in this country works... if it wasn't the case, we would have by-elections without an MP resigning to force one.

The tweet says nothing about whether he agrees with the system, or whether he believes that an MP quitting a party should to the honourable thing and resign to force a by-election. All his tweet does is explain the reality of what a vote is in our current electoral system.

The reality of the situation though is the vast majority of voters will cast their vote to a particular party rather than specifically because of an individual MP in their constituency. A lot of people vote without even knowing the name of their local MP until they arrive at the ballot box.
 
ZupZup said:
It's not though, is it? What he has said in that tweet is a statement of fact. We all know that is how the electoral system in this country works... if it wasn't the case, we would have by-elections without an MP resigning to force one.

The tweet says nothing about whether he agrees with the system, or whether he believes that an MP quitting a party should to the honourable thing and resign to force a by-election. All his tweet does is explain the reality of what a vote is in our current electoral system.

The reality of the situation though is the vast majority of voters will cast their vote to a particular party rather than specifically because of an individual MP in their constituency. A lot of people vote without even knowing the name of their local MP until they arrive at the ballot box.
Click to expand...

Sure. I know that. A reality that Jezza only brings up when it suits him. When it doesn't suit him, he decides that what actually matters is the current electoral system.

It's funny discussing this stuff on a football website, because there's a lot of similarities with the way people defend their favourite footballers. They can literally do no wrong, no matter how abominably they've played.
 
ZupZup said:
It's not though, is it? What he has said in that tweet is a statement of fact. We all know that is how the electoral system in this country works... if it wasn't the case, we would have by-elections without an MP resigning to force one.

The tweet says nothing about whether he agrees with the system, or whether he believes that an MP quitting a party should to the honourable thing and resign to force a by-election. All his tweet does is explain the reality of what a vote is in our current electoral system.

The reality of the situation though is the vast majority of voters will cast their vote to a particular party rather than specifically because of an individual MP in their constituency. A lot of people vote without even knowing the name of their local MP until they arrive at the ballot box.
Click to expand...

If it's a statement of fact there is nothing 'dishonourable' about refusing to resign to force a by-election then. After all, the constituents vote for the MP, not the party or leader of said party. By Corbyn's logic (and statement of fact) TIG MPs still have the support of the majority of their constituents until the next General Election is called. To say otherwise is hypocrisy and moving the goalposts to suit your argument.

Edit: And given Corbyn's response to TIG's resignations, one would assume that now he is World Labour Leader Champion Of the World, he no longer believes his explanation to be the case.
 
Last edited:
I've not been paying attention to UK politics and only just noticed this. Is anyone holding out any hope for this being anything other than an absolute shambles?
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Sure. I know that. A reality that Jezza only brings up when it suits him. When it doesn't suit him, he decides that what actually matters is the current electoral system.

It's funny discussing this stuff on a football website, because there's a lot of similarities with the way people defend their favourite footballers. They can literally do no wrong, no matter how abominably they've played.
Click to expand...

Brings it up when it suits him? Where's the evidence that he didn't think someone quitting a party should trigger a by-election before? You've called him a hypocrite as if he has changed his mind... but there is no evidence that he has. A tweet where he explains to someone how the voting system actually works doesn't mean he had a different opinion back then at all.

That'sHernandez said:
If it's a statement of fact there is nothing 'dishonourable' about refusing to resign to force a by-election then. After all, the constituents vote for the MP, not the party or leader of said party. By Corbyn's logic (and statement of fact) TIG MPs still have the support of the majority of their constituents until the next General Election is called. To say otherwise is hypocrisy and moving the goalposts to suit your argument.
Click to expand...

It is not hypocrisy at all. In our electoral system, as individuals we cast a vote at the ballot box and that vote is actually for our local MP rather than the party/leader. That's just how our system works. The vast majority of the electorate vote because of a particular party or leader, rather than their local MP... this is also true. How is pointing that out hypocritical?
 
sun_tzu said:
If they had joined the conservatives or the libs they should by convention at that point hold a by election... That is the convention of the house though there is no obligation

https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/elections-and-voting/by-elections/

Eg Doug cars well joined ukip and held an election

Frank field and jarad o'mara are now independent and have not had by elections

Genuinely I think new labour under Blair was the wrong party for Corbyn... Resigning the whip and standing on his principals as an independent would have been in my opinion more honourable.
Click to expand...

Well done for picking out two from a longlist of protest resignations calling by-elections.

So your logic is join an existing party and they should call a by-election but form a new one and it's okay to keep your seat uncontested for 4 years? You honestly hold a distinction between the two?

You've been one of a bunch previously highlighting that Labour has to be a broad church but evidently that works one way.
 
Smores said:
Well done for picking out two from a longlist of protest resignations calling by-elections.

So your logic is join an existing party and they should call a by-election but form a new one and it's okay to keep your seat uncontested for 4 years? You honestly hold a distinction between the two?

You've been one of a bunch previously highlighting that Labour has to be a broad church but evidently that works one way.
Click to expand...
They have not yet formed an official party ... Upon doing so then yes convention is they should then call one
 
You must log in or register to reply here.