A deselection process does exist for Labour leader. And Jezza fecking smashed it.
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Nearly a whole brand new page in a matter of minutes because someone posted something that wasn't pro-Corbyn. The usual mob out in force. 6pm must be the overlap in shifts because all are on tonight. If it's not a bat-signal it's an SMS alert. They all come too quickly for email notification.
Because Corbyn has twice been elected Labour Party leader while promoting a left-wing agenda that delivered Labour its best result in over a decade, albeit one that was still a defeat.
There is clearly room for people to disagree with Corbyn. All parties have delusional mentalists but I've spoken to Corbynites who either have their reservations about him or who recognise the Labour movement extends beyond him.
But what isn't spoken is MP's from a party mounting a bizarre defence of a government rival who has been exposed as a liar in an event which is a big win for their party leader. Put it this way - do you not see that as problematic at all?
You seem to be in some sort of time warp. When it was Corbyn, the bastard 'trots and entryists' were actually either kicked out of the party, or prevented from voting for backing other parties' proposals. They set the precedent then, we're just following it.
There's literally no room to disagree with Corbyn. Look at this thread and ANY time someone posts anything that isn't pro-Corbyn Dobba, Silva, Sweet Square are there within moments. This MP wasn't even disagreeing with Corbyn he was expressing a view on a resignation that you'd rather he hadn't expressed. You're entitled to think that but you're not entitled to the view that calling for the resignation of someone elected leader because you dislike them is unreasonable but it's fine to demand that constituents change their MP they've chosen to elect for the best part of 20 years because you don't like them.
I'm pretty sure you called people nutters pal. Try that in a pub and if the most you've got to complain about is people calling you out for it, you'll have done pretty well for yourself.
That's true. He'd already done that just prior to the last election where he proudly proclaimed he wouldn't back him as Prime Minister.
The main reason he should feck off is because he's shit at being a labour MP.
Maybe there's a subgroup where one of those notifications go off on the top right of the page with a number. Specially colour coded where if anyone isn't praising Corbyn in the Jeremy Corbyn appreciation thread it's black rather than red, so the disciples know it's extra important.
For 'where if anyone isn't praising Corbyn' read 'where when I call people who post on this forum morons, nutters, a mob or a cult'.
Jon Woodcock belongs to a small group of Labour MP's who will criticise Corbyn and party policy any time the opportunity presents itself. He's an odious cretin who should just feck off to the Tory party because that's where he belongs.
Corybn belonged to a small group of MPs who was happy to always speak out against whoever the leader was at the time too.
Which party did you want him to feck off to at the time?
He was defending a crooked government minister when she'd resigned in disgrace. Any opposition politician talking about such an event should be seeking to capitalise on it, not mount some strange defence of them.
You're using the examples of three people in this thread when the Labour Party has hundreds of thousands of members. I've spoken to people who like Corbyn but disagree with him on the EU. Or who support Labour's general message but are put off by McDonnell's past remarks. You're generalising a significant bunch of people as 'nutters' because you disagree with their political message and yet somehow don't seem to see a problem with that at all.
I don't see why the length of time an MP's been in office should automatically give them some sort of hallowed status. Members of a political party are allowed to argue that someone doesn't represent that party and should thus be removed as an MP. I'd argue it's a dangerous approach to go down to the extreme, but there are quite clearly Labour MP's who don't really represent anything resembling a left-wing agenda or a strong opposition to right-wing austerity politics. Leftists are allowed to display their anger with that, especially when a select few of those MP's are trying to undermine a major win for the party.
I'd rather you not talk about Corbyn in that sort of tone. We are trying to make a kinder gentler politics around here.
I'm sorry but I don't think there's any doubt this thread is 'policed' by those who think anyone having a different view on Jeremy Corbyn is definitely their business.
Why don't we all agree to stop calling for John Woodcock to be kicked out of the party until after his local Labour Party complain to HQ about his actions?
yes, just good, honest criticism of Jeremy Corbyn here
Which mental illness do we 'nutters' suffer from?
I'm sorry but I don't think there's any doubt this thread is 'policed' who think anyone having a different view on Jeremy Corbyn is definitely their business.
I'm sorry but I don't think there's any doubt this thread is 'policed' by those who think anyone having a different view on Jeremy Corbyn is definitely their business.
I've never even voted for Corbyn fecks sake!
People are just calling you out for the fact you've made a bizarre point. And for as much as I'm sympathetic to some of your points, I find it especially bizarre (although mostly typical of your approach) that you've attacked him on a day which has proven his opposition to the Immigration Bill back in 2014 to largely be prescient at a time when most of his party didn't bother their arses.
I didn't actually criticise Corbyn at all. I criticised those who think reselecting every sitting MP is anything other than insanity. Probably included in that group are people who reply almost immediately to anything in this thread that isn't overtly pro-Corbyn. Which seems to include anyone who doesn't want to hang someone who posts a Tweet that Corbyn supporters dislike.
Bingo.I've never even voted for Corbyn fecks sake!
People are just calling you out for the fact you've made a bizarre point. And for as much as I'm sympathetic to some of your points, I find it especially bizarre (although mostly typical of your approach) that you've attacked him on a day which has proven his opposition to the Immigration Bill back in 2014 to largely be prescient at a time when most of his party didn't bother their arses.
I've never even voted for Corbyn fecks sake!
People are just calling you out for the fact you've made a bizarre point. And for as much as I'm sympathetic to some of your points, I find it especially bizarre (although mostly typical of your approach) that you've attacked him on a day which has proven his opposition to the Immigration Bill back in 2014 to largely be prescient at a time when most of his party didn't bother their arses.
When have I attacked him?
Find one criticism of Corbyn in anything I've wrote today. This is why it's absolutely fecking insane. I've not criticised Corbyn AT ALL and yet the mob are here accusing me of doing so.
Please find one thing I've said about Corbyn today that's criticised him or his leadership. This is how absolutely absurd the sensitivity is here. Any opinion that deviates from anyone who supports Corbyn is shut down, seen as an 'attack'. I've said nothing against Corbyn at all today, merely that mandatory reselection of MPs is a shite idea and those who support it need their heads testing. That's the limit of what I've said.
Is that where the line is now? Anyone who doesn't support Corbyn is a Tory? This is the sort of over-aggressive bluster that gives Corbyn's fanbase such a bad press.
You're in the Jeremy Corbyn thread, calling supporters of Jeremy Corbyn nutters, defending Labour Party MP's who have undermined Jeremy Corbyn, and haven't offered any praise of Jeremy Corbyn or other Labour figures (including Cooper, to give her credit) who have exposed this issue and held the government to account effectively. You don't need to criticise Corbyn directly (as you tend to do) for your agenda against him to be fairly obvious. Although I expect in your reply you'll obfuscate again and ignore the general point I'm making by quoting one small section of this post to try and deflect.
It's not an appreciation thread. This isn't the home of Jeremy Corbyn supporters in the same way the Donald Trump thread isn't a place where Donald Trump fans hang out. This is part of the problem, this thread is seen by people as the Corbyn appreciation thread.
Your point was that I had attacked Corbyn. I haven't voiced a single criticism of him today. Even if I had, so what?. My opinion was that mandatory reselection is a ridiculous way to proceed. That's the entire point I was making. You've then accused me of 'attacking' Corbyn and when I point out I did no such thing you accuse me of obfuscation.
Someone said: Mandatory reselections is a bonkers idea and calling for it is lunacy.
The constant hysteria in this thread whenever anyone even perceives of a slight against Corbyn is so that it kicks of almost an entirely new page in a matter of minutes of outrage
You should look up who John woodcox is. He is very right wing to put it mildly.
Of course it isn't. My point is that you consistently refuse to view him in a balanced manner and attack him personally and his supporters at every single opportunity, and refuse to acknowledge any potential positives which have occurred under his leadership.
Again - I'm not necessarily a huge Corbyn fan. I agree with his general agenda but feel he has been weak on the EU and don't generally trust Labour to deal with Scotland effectively. But someone claiming to be a Labour supporter and then tarnishing the Labour leader for literally everything he does gets tiring when that same voice claims to be an unbiased moderate arguing against delusional nutters.
All fair points, but couple of comments:
1. Corbyn lost the last election to one of the worst PMs of recent times and despite the vast tide of public anger at Brexit.
2. Woodcock wasn't defending Rudd - he was saying other potential home secs could be worse.
I've said it to you before but I just like to annoy you mainly because it's really funny but also because your politics is a living time capsule of the mid 2000's. Like a mix between Dan Hodges and Fred Durst.
I'm sorry but I don't think there's any doubt this thread is 'policed' by those who think anyone having a different view on Jeremy Corbyn is definitely their business.
May's shite, yes, but the perception of her being shite didn't really fully develop until pressure was applied to her during that election. Until then there was still a persisting myth that she was a sort of second Iron Lady, this strong, resolute leader who was banding her fractured party together in an effective manner. There was plenty of public anger against Brexit but also plenty of support for it (obviously), and Corbyn had to balance anti and pro-Brexit Labour voters when campaigning.
It's still a bizarre point for Woodcock to make. Who cares? The new HS was obviously going to be a Tory - so obviously Labour are going to be opposed to them. And the problem with him is far from restricted to this one single issue.
He isn't mate. He may be sympathetic to Israel but he was also chair of Progress, whose chief organiser Richard Angell i know personally. He, and they, are definitely not right-wing.
If you're saying Woodcock is 'very right-wing' you're just fuelling the fire of people who paint Corbynistas as delusional know-nothings.
Come on mate...
Her personal poll ratings were largely still strong before the election and the Tories as a whole were polling strongly. I don't see what's incorrect at all about that argument.
Corbyn shouldn't necessarily be given credit for those weaknesses being exposed because a lot of them were her own doing (social care U-turns and refusing to debate etc) but she certainly wasn't seen as a universally limp, weak leader before the election.
I didn't even say I agreed with Mann's tweet. I said I thought Jess Phillips trying to ensure the blame goes to May was a reasonable thing to Tweet. I also said calling for mandatory reselections was a shit idea.
Translation: I'VE ATTACKED CORBYN!!
Okay.
Translation: I'VE ATTACKED CORBYN!!
Okay.
Have you seen Woodcox views on Turkey ?
https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/john-woodcock-lining-up-with-fascists-say-campaigners
and his views on Saudi Arabia
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...r-mps-blood-hands-yemen-conflict-saudi-arabia
https://skwawkbox.org/2018/04/11/woodcock-uses-easter-recess-to-visit-saudi-arabia/
Sorry but he is very right wing.
Fine with Erdogan and the House of Saud, not willing to back Corbyn if he became Prime Minister. Definitely not right wing though.
Woodcock suspended.
Unfortunate time for those publicly defending him.
Oh yeah of course, if the morning star and skawkbox say it's true..
Look he's clearly on the right of the party but that doesn't mean he's on the right of all the parties!
Noone said he wasn't a pervy wrong'un mate
Have met his partner Isabel Hardman and she's both attractive and fun. What's he playing at?
Corbyn has supported the Venezuelan regime, which is going down in infamy for its brutal repression of its enemies; appeared on Russia Today, the mouthpiece for a regime which has occupied foreign territories by force; and backed the military dictatorship of Hamas.
By your logic he's further right than Gengis Khan