Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)

[Ubik]

Tucked away in the you gov poll

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.n...m8d71xdb9/InternalResults_160115_Corbyn_W.pdf

If Jeremy Corbyn remains leader of the Labour party, how likely or unlikely do you think it is that they will win the next general election?
Very Likely 4%
Fairly Likely 10%
Fairly Unlikely 26%
Very Unlikely 43%
Dont Know 16%

Total likely = 14%
Total Unlikely = 69%

So much bad stuff in there. Cameron at -14 with C2DEs, Corbyn at -44(!!).

This also makes a good point:

 

[NinjaFletch]

Then if the Scottish seats are effectively being written off Labour has a huge problem
One of the reasons according to their own report into the election for their poor performance was voters in England not wanting the SNP in a Westminister power sharing arrangement - So Labour needs to win a lot more English / Welsh seats to form a government and are Corbyns policies really going to achieve that? - I doubt it
Longer term should Scotland leave the union it will be an even more stark problem as there wont even be the possibility of an SNP - Labour coalition (though I think it would be so toxic long term to labour they would be idiots to do it anyway).

Agreed its a massive problem for the Labour party, but its one that goes far beyond Corbyn and I can't see them being able to solve it regardless of leadership.

Tbh, the way the wind seems to be blowing I can see Scotland being an independent country within the next 10 years.

 

[Shamwow]

What Corbyn actually said about negotiating with ISIS:

AM: Back at the time of the IRA in full flood as it were, the government said, ‘no talking to terrorists,’ ‘no talking to terrorists’. People like you who suggest talking to terrorists are themselves like terrorists. We now know of course they were talking to the IRA from very early stages, and the same in other parts of the world. Now, obviously Isis can’t be part of the Vienna talks at the moment, but do you think there should be a back channel, should we be talking to Isis at this point already, making some kind of contact with them?

JC: The British government maintained a channel to the IRA all through the Troubles.

AM: I don’t doubt it.

JC: I don’t condemn them for that. I don’t condemn them for keeping a back channel to Taliban. I think you have to look at the sources of Isis’s funding, you have to look at the relationship with Turkey, with Saudi Arabia, with Iran and many other countries of the world.

AM: My question is should we be talking to Isis?

JC: There has to be some routes through somewhere, because remember a lot of the commanders in Isil, particularly in Iraq but to some extent in Syria, are actually former officers in the Iraqi army, because we made many catastrophic mistakes, one of which was to destroy the whole Iraqi state structure after 2003.

AM: Absolutely. So we could have a dialogue with these people?

JC: No, I’m – dialogue is perhaps the wrong word to use. I think there has to be some understanding of where their strong points are, where their weak points are and how we can challenge their ideology.

AM: But some kind of ... negotiation.

JC: And so I believe that the neighbouring governments in the region are in touch. Look at the way in which there’s been some degree at times of prisoner exchange, or hostage exchange, things like that. Look, we’ve got to bring about a political solution in Syria, that’s something I’ve been calling for all along. So Vienna has made a lot of progress. It’s got to go a lot further and a lot faster, there’s got to be peace. But war crimes have got to be addressed.

fecking outrageous.

 

[sun_tzu]

What Corbyn actually said about negotiating with ISIS:



fecking outrageous.

Some understanding about isis strong points
Fecking outrageous indeed

 

[Shamwow]

Some understanding about isis strong points
Fecking outrageous indeed

And?

 

[sun_tzu]

And?

The strong points of isis ideology...
Where to begin???

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

You could also infer from his words that a Corbyn government would directly negotiate with IS were it to be holding British citizens, and possibly go so far as to pay ransoms. Whilst such an approach is a policy adopted by some of our E8ropean neighbours, it marked and contentious change for the UK. He should also be wary of borrowing from the Assad or Turkish play-book, as many have been hihgly critical of those very dealings.

 

[Shamwow]

The strong points of isis ideology...
Where to begin???

Well I won't be much help with where you'll begin because I think you're talking hysterical nonsense.

Maybe start by talking sense?

 

[Shamwow]

You could also infer from his words that a Corbyn government would directly negotiate with IS were it to be holding British citizens, and possibly go so far as to pay ransoms. Whilst such an approach is a policy adopted by some of our E8ropean neighbours, it marked and contentious change for the UK. He should also be wary of borrowing from the Assad or Turkish play-book, as many have been hihgly critical of those very dealings.

That's all you've got? Considering all the shit that has been said the last few days, that's really weak.

He's literally just giving examples of how it's obvious that there is already back channel communications going on and then praised the Vienna process.

 

[Snowjoe]

What Corbyn actually said about negotiating with ISIS:



fecking outrageous.

In general I think Corbyn can be a bit of a clown and really doesn't do himself many favours, but in this case I can't see anything wrong with what he's said here.

 

[Ubik]

It's true, we're now at the stage when Corbyn being open to the possibility of negotiations with Da'esh is only the fourth worst thing he does in a major interview.

I think all of Cameron's attack lines today were taken from it, and he didn't even get onto this stuff.

 

[sun_tzu]

Well I won't be much help with where you'll begin because I think you're talking hysterical nonsense.

Well I'm repeating what Corbyn said so your probably right

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

That's all you've got? Considering all the shit that has been said the last few days, that's really weak.

He's literally just giving examples of how it's obvious that there is already back channel communications going on and then praised the Vienna process.

All i did was provide an additional interpretation of his statements, and how long standing policy might plausibly come to be altered as a result. I could reach more extreme conclusions if you would prefer? Such would certainly be possible with how Corbyn descends into vague speech and comparisons of a rather tenuous nature.

 

[Shamwow]

All i did was provide an additional interpretation of his statements, and how long standing policy might plausibly come to be altered as a result. I could reach more extreme conclusions if you would prefer? Such would certainly be possible with how Corbyn descends into vague speech and comparisons of a rather tenuous nature.

It's clear to me what he said. You call it interpreting, I call it twisting.

 

[Shamwow]

It's true, we're now at the stage when Corbyn being open to the possibility of negotiations with Da'esh is only the fourth worst thing he does in a major interview.

I think all of Cameron's attack lines today were taken from it, and he didn't even get onto this stuff.

Who needs Cameron when you've got Benn?

 

[Ubik]

Who needs Cameron when you've got Benn?

More to the point, who needs Corbyn when you've got Benn?

 

[Shamwow]

More to the point, who needs Corbyn when you've got Benn?

That's a bit of a bullshit poll question - Benn has been under no scrutiny aside from a rabble rousing speech that got praised for being loud and pointy. He didn't even run in the leadership election remember?

Once again, no doubt there is enough to criticise Corbyn but it's easy for the centre to undermine, criticise, twist his words, and blame all of Labour's ills on him - when it's clear that the centre itself has been and still is suffering a crisis of ineptitude that most probably led to his election as leader in the first place.

 

[Ubik]

That's a bit of a bullshit poll question - Benn has been under no scrutiny aside from a rabble rousing speech that got praised for being loud and pointy. He didn't even run in the leadership election remember?

Once again, no doubt there is enough to criticise Corbyn but it's easy for the centre to undermine, criticise, twist his words, and blame all of Labour's ills on him - when it's clear that the centre itself has been and still is suffering a crisis of ineptitude that most probably led to his election as leader in the first place.

Scrutiny is a good point that I'd accept if more Corbyn voters had properly scrutinised his past statements, actions and friendships during the election, rather than brushing off all the criticism as "smearing". I knew this backlash was coming, so did plenty of others. If you're surprised by it, you didn't scrutinise him enough.

And I'd be delighted if we could all properly scrutinise Benn and other candidates in another leadership election, it can happen pretty quickly once all the people who voted for Corbyn finally admit he's taking Labour to about 27% in 2020 and take away their support.

 

[Shamwow]

Aww his ears must have been burning because he just emailed this lovely video. Fluffy but it's alright and for bonus points it manages not to mention foreign policy but 2:41 onwards made me laugh. He's literally listening to people on the ground!

 

[sun_tzu]

Well he avoided any mention of trident, talking to Isis rather than bombing them, the malvinas, or not shooting rampaging terrorists ... By his standards that's pretty slick
Given Labour's own report into election failure saying economic credibility (or lack of) was a major reason people didn't vote for them it's bold (or naive) to say you are going to fight against cuts and that you would invest in lots of things without any mention as to where the money is supposedly coming from (or the implications for the deficit / debt)

 

[Marching]

"They are not, as far as I know, a force that wants to negotiate with anybody. My view on Isis is that you have to cut off their money, cut off their arms and cut of their oil sales in order to try and isolate them."

Corbyn's words on a previous Andrew Marr programme.

Doesn't sound like he wants to negotiate with them. Good man.

 

[Shamwow]

Scrutiny is a good point that I'd accept if more Corbyn voters had properly scrutinised his past statements, actions and friendships during the election, rather than brushing off all the criticism as "smearing". I knew this backlash was coming, so did plenty of others. If you're surprised by it, you didn't scrutinise him enough.

And I'd be delighted if we could all properly scrutinise Benn and other candidates in another leadership election, it can happen pretty quickly once all the people who voted for Corbyn finally admit he's taking Labour to about 27% in 2020 and take away their support.

It's easy to know the backlash is coming when you're planning to back the lash yourself. Or something.

It's a bit of a predicament really isn't it? His position seems untenable but at the same time he hasn't been given a fair whack. He's won the leadership which has to be respected, but he needs to compromise on certain issues while elements in the PLP need to compromise on others.

A big frustration for me is the type of statement like your last sentence. I've read similar a lot and it's arrogance. It's dismissive of the majority of the party and it's a statement that says nothing of the alternative. Especially frustrating with certain elements within the PLP and Labour establishment, who expect Corbyn to fail and then actively and blatantly try to help it happen.

I'm all for a debate about what defines the Labour party and where it is headed - in fact it certainly needs one - but how it's happening now is simply not right. And within the PLP, to me that is more down to those involved on the right of the party. What Labour needs most of all is to be cohesive and that simply can't happen when the side of the debate that lost the initiative is being so disruptive and at such high levels of the party.

 

[Ubik]

It's not really arrogance, in the same way that repeatedly banging your head against a table isn't arrogance. Idiotic and self-defeating, perhaps. But I mainly really don't want to see the Tories have a 100-seat majority in 2020, essentially guaranteeing them another decade in power. And as someone that in a single interview willingly gives Cameron lines to beat him (and the Labour party as a whole) with, as on Trident, the Falklands, secondary picketing and Da'esh negotiation (ah, for the heady days of women-only train carriages), without any help from the nasties in the PLP by the way, Corbyn is by far the largest factor making that the likelihood. Maybe some people like that stuff being brought up, I dunno, but it seems self-evident that a leader of a major party who hopes to become Prime Minister shouldn't be going near any of it.

 

[Chorley1974]

It's not really arrogance, in the same way that repeatedly banging your head against a table isn't arrogance. Idiotic and self-defeating, perhaps. But I mainly really don't want to see the Tories have a 100-seat majority in 2020, essentially guaranteeing them another decade in power. And as someone that in a single interview willingly gives Cameron lines to beat him (and the Labour party as a whole) with, as on Trident, the Falklands, secondary picketing and Da'esh negotiation (ah, for the heady days of women-only train carriages), without any help from the nasties in the PLP by the way, Corbyn is by far the largest factor making that the likelihood. Maybe some people like that stuff being brought up, I dunno, but it seems self-evident that a leader of a major party who hopes to become Prime Minister shouldn't be going near any of it.

The real issue is that JC does represent party membership, but is effectively unelectable.

 

[Shamwow]

It's not really arrogance, in the same way that repeatedly banging your head against a table isn't arrogance. Idiotic and self-defeating, perhaps. But I mainly really don't want to see the Tories have a 100-seat majority in 2020, essentially guaranteeing them another decade in power. And as someone that in a single interview willingly gives Cameron lines to beat him (and the Labour party as a whole) with, as on Trident, the Falklands, secondary picketing and Da'esh negotiation (ah, for the heady days of women-only train carriages), without any help from the nasties in the PLP by the way, Corbyn is by far the largest factor making that the likelihood. Maybe some people like that stuff being brought up, I dunno, but it seems self-evident that a leader of a major party who hopes to become Prime Minister shouldn't be going near any of it.

This is once again just blaming every issue on Corbyn but you've got no viable alternatives. Every time a politician comes along who has the right image people get excited that we've got the next Labour prime minister but nothing has stuck because there doesn't seem to be any real substance behind any of it. I'll take Corbyn's clumsy approach over a fart in the wind thanks.

If you want to blame anybody, maybe you should blame the people who had the same opinion of him as you do but nominated him anyway. At least the people who voted for him actually believed in the man. Half of them didn't vote for him and some of these people openly said they didn't want him to win. They wanted to give a token vote to the left for the sake of image. It's that kind of spineless stupidity that lost Labour the last election, and according to you and many others will lose it the next.

 

[Ubik]

The real issue is that JC does represent party membership, but is effectively unelectable.

I don't believe he represents the broader Labour vote though, and if the party wants to get back into a position of power again it's going to have to work on converting a lot of those voters into members/supporters, otherwise it'll turn into the situation the Republicans in the US currently have (though this is made tricky given that many don't want to be a member whilst Corbyn remains). We'll have to see how the membership reacts to whatever the results in May are.

This is once again just blaming every issue on Corbyn but you've got no viable alternatives. Every time a politician comes along who has the right image people get excited that we've got the next Labour prime minister but nothing has stuck because there doesn't seem to be any real substance behind any of it. I'll take Corbyn's clumsy approach over a fart in the wind thanks.

If you want to blame anybody, maybe you should blame the people who had the same opinion of him as you do but nominated him anyway. At least the people who voted for him actually believed in the man. Half of them didn't vote for him and some of these people openly said they didn't want him to win. They wanted to give a token vote to the left for the sake of image. It's that kind of spineless stupidity that lost Labour the last election, and according to you and many others will lose it the next.

It's not blaming every issue on Corbyn, it's highlighting that he screws up enough on his own wind that the attempts to blame his unpopularity on the people pointing out that he's screwed up is far-fetched. I've pointed out any number of times the failings of the centrist branch of the party, not least their tendency for cowardice, but they are at least not currently driving Labour off a cliff (and yes, I do hold those who nominated him responsible as well).

EDIT -

As an aside, it looks like the more pragmatic and well regarded members of Corbyn's team (Neale Coleman and Simon Fletcher) are on their way out. At the behest of those two great appointments Seumas Milne and John McDonnell, no less.

 

[Shamwow]

It's not blaming every issue on Corbyn, it's highlighting that he screws up enough on his own wind that the attempts to blame his unpopularity on the people pointing out that he's screwed up is far-fetched. I've pointed out any number of times the failings of the centrist branch of the party, not least their tendency for cowardice, but they are at least not currently driving Labour off a cliff (and yes, I do hold those who nominated him responsible as well).

Oh come off it "just pointing out that he's screwed up" is massively underplaying what's been going on in the PLP and you know it. You argument would also have a lot more weight if it hadn't been well under way before he'd even had a chance to screw up.

 

[Jippy]

Oh come off it "just pointing out that he's screwed up" is massively underplaying what's been going on in the PLP and you know it. You argument would also have a lot more weight if it hadn't been well under way before he'd even had a chance to screw up.

Ubik just can't forgive him for licking out Diane Abbott, in a nutshell.

 

[Ubik]

Gaaah not the velcro again!

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

Jeremy Corbyn warned that Labour faces triple whammy of election blows in May

Shadow cabinet told party due to lose 200 English council seats, its effective majority on Welsh Assembly and every Scottish constituency seat

By Ben Riley-Smith, Political Correspondent
21 Jan 2016

Jeremy Corbyn has been told Labour will suffer a hat-trick of election blows next May by losing 200 council seats in England, its effective majority in the Welsh Assembly and all constituency seats in Scotland, The Telegraph can disclose.

The warnings came as infighting in the Labour leader’s office forced the resignation of one of his most senior aides, raising fears “lunatics” on the hard-Left now “have the keys to the asylum” at the top of the party.

Neale Coleman, Labour’s executive director of policy and rebuttal, resigned after reportedly clashing with John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, and Seumas Milne, the party’s director of communications.

The split in Mr Corbyn’s top team came as the shadow cabinet sat in “stoical silence” on Tuesday while being told the party was heading for damaging defeats at the local elections in May.

Patrick Heneghan, Labour’s executive director of elections and stakeholders, used the behind-close-doors meeting to reveal stark findings on the chances of success in Mr Corbyn’s first major electoral test.

Such a poor performance would likely trigger renewed calls for the Labour leader to step down from his internal critics and raise serious questions about his ability to win in 2020.

During Mr Heneghan’s presentation it is understood the shadow cabinet was told that Labour could lose 200 council seats in England and control of up to half a dozen councils.

The defeats would be in stark contrast to Ed Miliband’s performance when the seats were last up for election in 2012, when he grew Labour’s total by 800. At the time Labour was enjoying a surge in the polls after George Osborne’s “omnishambles” budget unravelled.

Among those councils most at risk of being lost by Labour are said to be Reddtich, Worcestershire, and Cannock Chase, in Staffordshire.

In Wales, the shadow cabinet was told the party would lose its effective majority in the Welsh Assembly – Labour currently has exactly half of seats available but rules alone rather than in coalition.

There are particular concerns that the UK Independence Party (Ukip) is eating into Labour’s support in working class communities and could win as many as half a dozen seats.

In Scotland, frontbenchers were warned that there is no sign of an upswing in support since Mr Corbyn became leader and that the party would lose every constituency seat in the Holyrood elections.

Such a result would leave Labour reliant on list seats, which are distributed based on a party’s total vote share across Scotland – a remarkable position given Labour’s previous dominance north of the border.

Allies of Mr Corbyn point out that the 2012 council elections were the party’s best result for 10 years and that the slump in Scotland started well before Mr Corbyn came to power in September. Sadiq Khan, Labour's candidate for London Mayor, is also favourite to win in May.

Even so, if results are as bad as feared it is likely moderate Labour MPs frustrated with Mr Corbyn’s leadership would use them to destabilise his position.

Mr Heneghan, dubbed Labour’s “armchair general”, was credited was denying the Tories a majority in 2010 and is one of the most respected figures in Labour’s elections team.

It comes after infighting in Mr Corbyn’s top team was revealed as Mr Coleman resigned just months after joining the team. He was said to have been frustrated policy decisions were being made without his approval.

Simon Fletcher, Mr Corbyn's chief of staff, is rumoured to be considering stepping down as a battle rages between more moderate Leftist voices and hardliners – though that suggestion was played down on Thursday night.

An unnamed shadow cabinet source said: "The feeling is total dread. It's a cold shiver down the spine of every moderate because Neale was key in making it work, if it was ever going to.

"If he's gone, and then (chief of staff Simon) Fletcher goes, the lunatics will have the keys to the asylum and I genuinely fear for our party's future."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...s-triple-whammy-of-election-blows-in-May.html

 

[Ubik]

Jeremy Corbyn warned that Labour faces triple whammy of election blows in May

Don't Panic.

 

[Ubik]

Some more petrol for the ol' bonfire.

 

[Shamwow]

I don't see why Scottish voters would vote for Labour on the basis of Corbyn anyway seeing as the PLP have made it quite clear that he'll go as soon as they can make it happen. Shitty situation all round.

 

[sun_tzu]

I don't see why Scottish voters would vote for Labour on the basis of Corbyn anyway seeing as the PLP have made it quite clear that he'll go as soon as they can make it happen. Shitty situation all round.

I don't see why English voters would vote for him either...
which the polls also seem to back up

 

[Shamwow]

I don't see why English voters would vote for him either...
which the polls also seem to back up

Labour as a whole is basically getting what it deserves at the moment.

 

[sun_tzu]

Labour as a whole is basically getting what it deserves at the moment.

true - when you pick a leader who is an unelectable buffoon you cant be surprised when his buffoonery makes you unelectable

 

[Shamwow]

Labour’s rough pathway to success:

1.Change leadership election process to give membership a larger say

2.Have no backbone when it comes to defending your previous record

3.Take Scotland for granted

4.Try and look as similar to the Tories as possible in key areas by doing things like abstaining from important welfare votes

5.Lose election

6.Take core vote for granted (aka lefties)

7.Run a leadership election with 3 shit bland centrists and one shit lefty (make sure you nominate the lefty to “provide a wider debate” but be completely against the prospect of him actually winning)

8.Run a really negative campaign against the lefty, whose support already largely comes from being anti-establishment. Make sure to get plenty of establishment figures to chime in on this negative campaign.

9.Shit yourselves when it looks like the lefty is going to win, bring up all sorts of shit about infiltration votes etc (and other bitching about your own membership)

10.Offer the lefty with no experience of leading as little support as possible. In fact, get a few resignations on there the day he wins the election, make sure to say to the press how you never wanted him in the first place (despite nominating him in some cases) brief against him constantly, ask the prime minister questions that undermine him in PMQ’s, when the media twists his words make sure to back the media up.

11.Don’t forget to carry on demonising the part of your membership that supports your new leader in the press

12.Watch as new leader makes multiple mistakes while under unusually high pressure from the press (which you have helped to create)

13.Wait until he has to step down

14.Put a bunch of bland centrists that no one cares about up for next leadership election

15.???

16.Win general election!

 

[Shamwow]

true - when you pick a leader who is an unelectable buffoon you cant be surprised when his buffoonery makes you unelectable

You're missing the fact that, Labour was clearly already unelectable seeing as they'd just failed to get elected twice and were in fact declining. All Corbyns fault though yeah?

 

[sun_tzu]

Labour’s rough pathway to success:

1.Change leadership election process to give membership a larger say

2.Have no backbone when it comes to defending your previous record

3.Take Scotland for granted

4.Try and look as similar to the Tories as possible in key areas by doing things like abstaining from important welfare votes

5.Lose election

6.Take core vote for granted (aka lefties)

7.Run a leadership election with 3 shit bland centrists and one shit lefty (make sure you nominate the lefty to “provide a wider debate” but be completely against the prospect of him actually winning)

8.Run a really negative campaign against the lefty, whose support already largely comes from being anti-establishment. Make sure to get plenty of establishment figures to chime in on this negative campaign.

9.Shit yourselves when it looks like the lefty is going to win, bring up all sorts of shit about infiltration votes etc (and other bitching about your own membership)

10.Offer the lefty with no experience of leading as little support as possible. In fact, get a few resignations on there the day he wins the election, make sure to say to the press how you never wanted him in the first place (despite nominating him in some cases) brief against him constantly, ask the prime minister questions that undermine him in PMQ’s, when the media twists his words make sure to back the media up.

11.Don’t forget to carry on demonising the part of your membership that supports your new leader in the press

12.Watch as new leader makes multiple mistakes while under unusually high pressure from the press (which you have helped to create)

13.Wait until he has to step down

14.Put a bunch of bland centrists that no one cares about up for next leadership election

15.???

16.Win general election!

If point 14 is elect Dan jarvis and point 15 is continually bang on about him being an ex Parra they might actually win enough of that UKIP vote to achieve point 16

 

[Shamwow]

If point 14 is elect Dan jarvis and point 15 is continually bang on about him being an ex Parra they might actually win enough of that UKIP vote to achieve point 16

That's exactly what we should look for in a leader. Someone who would look good in the backstory bit on x-factor.

feck me this country gets what it deserves with the Tories if you ask me. Might not even be such a bad thing.