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

...that said I'm not even sure the intention is to get the party to change its policy overnight as everyone knows how problematic and weak that'd make the leadership look. It's likely a move by the moderates/right of the party designed to exploit the chasm between Corbyn's support and Corbyn himself as part of a longer term aim to destabilise and ultimately remove him.

If this sneaky, manipulative, underhand duplicity is the case then that's perfectly okay with me.
 
...that said I'm not even sure the intention is to get the party to change its policy overnight as everyone knows how problematic and weak that'd make the leadership look. It's likely a move by the moderates/right of the party designed to exploit the chasm between Corbyn's support and Corbyn himself as part of a longer term aim to destabilise and ultimately remove him.

If this sneaky, manipulative, underhand duplicity is the case then that's perfectly okay with me.
Conference motion apparently
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45316697
 


I don't like the idea. The PLP is supposed to represent their constituents - the country. The membership should be a group of people who broadly share the same aims and and are willing to contribute financially to that. Have a say but I dislike the idea of the membership setting policy as I know there'll be times when leadership necessarily has to diverge from the opinion of the party because the position of the membership on a future issue might be so out of line with what the right thing to do is that a Labour opposition/govt would be right to completely ignore.

Setting up a membership to think that the leadership has an obligation to dance to their tune is highly problematic.
 
I don't like the idea. The PLP is supposed to represent their constituents - the country. The membership should be a group of people who broadly share the same aims and and are willing to contribute financially to that. Have a say but I dislike the idea of the membership setting policy as I know there'll be times when leadership necessarily has to diverge from the opinion of the party because the position of the membership on a future issue might be so out of line with what the right thing to do is that a Labour opposition/govt would be right to completely ignore.

Setting up a membership to think that the leadership has an obligation to dance to their tune is highly problematic.
He has pressure from a significant number of MP's and even momentum for a 2nd vote
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45316697
Will be interesting to see how it plays out at conference
That said I think the government will limp through the brexit process... I also suspect they will ensure we can't just rejoin in the transition period so yeah whatever I think we are leaving and there won't be a 2nd vote
 
Because of the reasons you mentioned. As a party they fecked over a significant number of people willing to vote for them, and were duly punished as a result. The inherent nature of FPTP means they've declined to a point where if you're not a Tory there really isn't a reason to vote for them in most areas, and they tend to be fairly limp and meek anyway which hardly helps to reverse their decline.

I'm not completely convinced coming out against Brexit is naturally advantageous for Labour in every respect, but I'm increasingly convinced it's not as damaging as people would say it is either, especially as the stupidity of the process becomes more and more apparent. And I do think that any action against Brexit isn't being helped by the fact the main opposition party is essentially tacitly backing it, albeit meekly enough to ensure they don't lose their base. And simply saying the majority believe something isn't exactly a good defence of a certain stance if you're aware that stance is daft. If there was a referendum tomorrow on whether or not to implement further austerity in Britain, Labour would rightfully be slaughtered if they chose not to fight against a vote which indicated the approval of the general public. As a left-wing party they'd naturally be expected to stand up for public services and highlighting the damaging impact of cuts. Indeed Corbyn's willingness to do that to a greater degree than previous Labour leaders is partially why his supporters continued to argue he should remain as leader even when it was clear by every metric that he wasn't doing well, and that he wasn't particularly electable.

Brexit is arguably a bit like that - Corbyn can argue all he wants about how to improve the NHS and other crucial services which have been damaged by Tory rule, but a lot of his current rhetoric is ultimately overshadowed by a process he publicly supports which will almost certainly damage the very things he intends to protect. There's probably some political capital in his current position, but I struggle to see how that cynical stance differs from, say, Blair deciding to drag the party to the centre on the basis that the party had been continually losing elections.

Thanks, for that. You saved me typing out a similarly lengthy post ha.

The only thing I'd add however, is that whether you think leaving the European Union could be a good thing from a left-wing point of view or not – and I take the point that some will make regarding the EU as a neo-liberal enterprise – it is demonstrably clear that opposing this Brexit is clearly the right thing to do at the minute for a left wing party, regardless of their long term commitment to the project. The damage from a Tory led feeding frenzy on the country's institutions and standards should not be allowed to happen.

Which kind of makes the whole debate a bit academic in my mind. If people will defend Corbyn's unpopular policies, like trident for example (which would be an incredibly tough sell to many traditional Labour voters particularly in the NE), as essentially the right thing to do in spite of the public's attitudes one way or another I cannot understand why that shouldn't extend to what is a far more important issue.
 
Last edited:
Labour not being a pro-European, pro-immigration, pro-freedom of movement party is such a shame. The irony of the accusations that the party lurched to the right in the late 90s/2000s when it advocated all of those things contrasted with the suggestion it's now returning to it's socialist routes by mirroring UKIP on each of those issues. I don't blame Corbyn necessarily for all of that, Labour's 'controls on immigration' mugs were an absolute disgrace too. Was that Brown or Milliband? For some reason after Blair left the party saw its purpose to apologise for everything it ever did. Apologise for investing, apologise for being pro-immigrant. It's nuts.

Especially on immigration, the narrative that somehow it's wrong to challenge the right-wing perception that immigration is inherently bad has been something Labour have conceded pretty much since the day Blair left. Such a shame.
 
Labour not being a pro-European, pro-immigration, pro-freedom of movement party is such a shame. The irony of the accusations that the party lurched to the right in the late 90s/2000s when it advocated all of those things contrasted with the suggestion it's now returning to it's socialist routes by mirroring UKIP on each of those issues. I don't blame Corbyn necessarily for all of that, Labour's 'controls on immigration' mugs were an absolute disgrace too. Was that Brown or Milliband? For some reason after Blair left the party saw its purpose to apologise for everything it ever did. Apologise for investing, apologise for being pro-immigrant. It's nuts.

Especially on immigration, the narrative that somehow it's wrong to challenge the right-wing perception that immigration is inherently bad has been something Labour have conceded pretty much since the day Blair left. Such a shame.

Milliband:

Controls-on-immigration-mug.png


It's been said in here a few times, but it's a shame how much Labour's electoral strategy neutered Milliband. Since stepping down as leader he's come across as funny, interesting, and full of ideas; a far cry from the weirdo with the stone tablet we saw when he was in charge.
 
Milliband:

It's been said in here a few times, but it's a shame how much Labour's electoral strategy neutered Milliband. Since stepping down as leader he's come across as funny, interesting, and full of ideas; a far cry from the weirdo with the stone tablet we saw when he was in charge.

I like him but he was ill-suited to be leader. Intelligent policy wonk/ideas guy but I'm not sure that the strategy neutered Milliband or whether people just didn't warm to him as a leader. What the public are comfortable with in a backbench MP is different to what they're comfortable with as a PM in waiting. It happens to a lot of politicians once they stop being in the front line, make a few TV appearances, turn up on Strictly Come Dancing and everyone thinks "Actually he's quite alright him".
 
Milliband:



It's been said in here a few times, but it's a shame how much Labour's electoral strategy neutered Milliband. Since stepping down as leader he's come across as funny, interesting, and full of ideas; a far cry from the weirdo with the stone tablet we saw when he was in charge.
if only he could have eaten a bacon sandwich properly we probably wouldnt be in the brexit mess we are today
 
I like him but he was ill-suited to be leader. Intelligent policy wonk/ideas guy but I'm not sure that the strategy neutered Milliband or whether people just didn't warm to him as a leader. What the public are comfortable with in a backbench MP is different to what they're comfortable with as a PM in waiting. It happens to a lot of politicians once they stop being in the front line, make a few TV appearances, turn up on Strictly Come Dancing and everyone thinks "Actually he's quite alright him".

I think he was a victim of the received wisdom of the time which was that UK politics was increasingly importing the US focus on 'personalities' and media savvy which meant that the ideal leader was a slick, generic charisma vacuum who could regurgitate a soundbite, deliver a pre-preparred one-liner and generally look like a leader.

Miliband was never one of those things, and rather than playing to his strengths they tried to ill fittingly force him to become what he was not. It might not have won an election, but it wouldn't have taken a much better showing to hoover up the Lib Dem vote and at least force a hung Parliament again.
 
Especially on immigration, the narrative that somehow it's wrong to challenge the right wing perception that immigration is inherently bad has been something Labour have conceded pretty much since the day Blair left. Such a shame.

You see, I don't get this, your average UKIP/Brexit supporter is far more in common with your average Labour supporter. English, white, hard working, working class.

Where as your average remain leaning Tory voter is more likely to be a middle class, well educated, professional.

The first group thinks the immigrants are stealing their jobs, the second group realise that they couldn't do their jobs without immigrants.
 
Labour not being a pro-European, pro-immigration, pro-freedom of movement party is such a shame. The irony of the accusations that the party lurched to the right in the late 90s/2000s when it advocated all of those things contrasted with the suggestion it's now returning to it's socialist routes by mirroring UKIP on each of those issues. I don't blame Corbyn necessarily for all of that, Labour's 'controls on immigration' mugs were an absolute disgrace too. Was that Brown or Milliband? For some reason after Blair left the party saw its purpose to apologise for everything it ever did. Apologise for investing, apologise for being pro-immigrant. It's nuts.

Especially on immigration, the narrative that somehow it's wrong to challenge the right-wing perception that immigration is inherently bad has been something Labour have conceded pretty much since the day Blair left. Such a shame.

The problem is though that even during the Blair/Brown years, Labour would talk tough on immigration in spite of the fact that they had no intention of addressing the issues facing those who disagreed with it. In other words, they didn't really combat hostility to immigration and let anti-immigrant attitudes fester, creating an environment where it was simultaneously normal to want numbers reduced, but where it also was also normal for the politicians in power to do absolutely nothing to address an issue they talked tough on. Cameron then did the same but took it a step further with his tens of thousands target - the problem, again, was that he had absolutely no intention following up his promises because he knew we couldn't while we remained within the EU. Politicians on all sides haven't really combated anti-immigration views because until Brexit they believed they could essentially talk a good game without having to do anything.
 
You see, I don't get this, your average UKIP/Brexit supporter is far more in common with your average Labour supporter. English, white, hard working, working class.

Where as your average remain leaning Tory voter is more likely to be a middle class, well educated, professional.

The first group thinks the immigrants are stealing their jobs, the second group realise that they couldn't do their jobs without immigrants.

The second group don't like brown people and think if we're insistent enough they'll let us bring the Empire back again. Fighting against the idea that immigration harms your job, your family and your prospects should be at the very core of what Labour stand for. This "Nige has a a point" capitulation to the far-right agenda on the issue has been disgusting.
 
Labour not being a pro-European, pro-immigration, pro-freedom of movement party is such a shame. The irony of the accusations that the party lurched to the right in the late 90s/2000s when it advocated all of those things contrasted with the suggestion it's now returning to it's socialist routes by mirroring UKIP on each of those issues. I don't blame Corbyn necessarily for all of that, Labour's 'controls on immigration' mugs were an absolute disgrace too. Was that Brown or Milliband? For some reason after Blair left the party saw its purpose to apologise for everything it ever did. Apologise for investing, apologise for being pro-immigrant. It's nuts.

Especially on immigration, the narrative that somehow it's wrong to challenge the right-wing perception that immigration is inherently bad has been something Labour have conceded pretty much since the day Blair left. Such a shame.

I suggest you look at the Blair government's record on immigration policy because basically everything you've written there is nonsense. Miliband's 'controls on immigration' mugs you call 'a disgrace' were a reflection of what had been Labour policy and rhetoric for a decade and a half by that point, thanks largely to Blair.

New Labour's immigration line from 2002 was one of 'Managed Migration'. The Australian-style points system UKIP have campaigned for over the last decade or so was first touted in 2005 as a pre-election policy document by Blair's government. The stated aim of the policy being to 'gain control of borders' and 'manage migration'. Sound familiar?

That policy was fleshed out in 2006 and argued for the creation of a points system based on high-skilled, skilled with job offer, low skilled, students and misc. categories. The IAN act the same year made it more difficult for immigrants to become UK citizens and restricted the right of appeal against immigration rulings. In 2007 the UK Borders Bill proposed giving immigration officers police powers and required that foreign nationals hold a BID (basically an ID card for foreigners). Blair had promised that in a speech to the Labour conference in 2004, vowing that a Labour government re-elected in 2005 would "introduce identity cards and electronic registration of all who cross our borders".

Distrust of the asylum system and of asylum seekers were a hallmark of Blair's domestic policy, to the extent that 'fixing the asylum system' i.e - making it more difficult for asylum seekers to get here and live here, was one of his stated domestic priorities from 2002 onwards. Four acts from 1998 - 2004 were passed specifically to clamp down on asylum claims and restrict the economic activity of those already granted asylum. In the same section of the speech above he also celebrated that "We have cut radically the numbers of failed asylum seekers'" and promised that "by the end of 2005, and for the first time in Britain, we will remove more each month than apply and so restore faith in a system that we know has been abused." Sounds pretty Farage-y doesn't it?

Your last sentence shows a clear lack of knowledge of what Blair actually did when he was in government and the rhetoric he employed, especially after his re-election in 2001. Blair's immigration policy and his rhetoric on asylum/low skilled migrants completely out-flanked the Conservatives on the issue and they were forced to back the whole lot in order to keep face. New Labour's re positioning to the right basically ended the positive vs. critical dichotomy on immigration which existed in mainstream British politics at the time and led to a situation where in the 3 elections between 2005 and 2015 the only party who ran with an unashamedly pro-immigration stance was the Greens, with every other party arguing over the minutiae of which immigrants they'd reject and how they'd do it. The fact that none of them would be able to keep any promise on numbers due to free-movement helped UKIP's case enormously.
 
Last edited:
The second group don't like brown people and think if we're insistent enough they'll let us bring the Empire back again. Fighting against the idea that immigration harms your job, your family and your prospects should be at the very core of what Labour stand for. This "Nige has a a point" capitulation to the far-right agenda on the issue has been disgusting.

Neither does the first group :lol:, in fact, they don't like anybody that isn't English.
 
I suggest you look at the Blair government's record on immigration policy because basically everything you've written there is nonsense. Miliband's 'controls on immigration' mugs you call 'a disgrace' were a reflection of what had been Labour policy and rhetoric for a decade and a half by that point, thanks largely to Blair.

New Labour's immigration line from 2002 was one of 'Managed Migration'. The Australian-style points system UKIP have campaigned for over the last decade or so was first touted in 2005 as a pre-election policy document by Blair's government. The stated aim of the policy being to 'gain control of borders' and 'manage migration'. Sound familiar?

That policy was fleshed out in 2006 and argued for the creation of a points system based on high-skilled, skilled with job offer, low skilled, students and misc. categories. The IAN act the same year made it more difficult for immigrants to become UK citizens and restricted the right of appeal against immigration rulings. In 2007 the UK Borders Bill proposed giving immigration officers police powers and required that foreign nationals hold a BID (basically an ID card for foreigners). Blair had promised that in a speech to the Labour conference in 2004, vowing that a Labour government re-elected in 2005 would "introduce identity cards and electronic registration of all who cross our borders".

Distrust of the asylum system and of asylum seekers were a hallmark of Blair's domestic policy, to the extent that 'fixing the asylum system' i.e - making it more difficult for asylum seekers to get here and live here, was one of his stated domestic priorities from 2002 onwards. Four acts from 1998 - 2004 were passed specifically to clamp down on asylum claims and restrict the economic activity of those already granted asylum. In the same section of the speech above he also celebrated that "We have cut radically the numbers of failed asylum seekers'" and promised that "by the end of 2005, and for the first time in Britain, we will remove more each month than apply and so restore faith in a system that we know has been abused." Sounds pretty Farage-y doesn't it?

Your last sentence shows a clear lack of knowledge of what Blair actually did when he was in government and the rhetoric he employed, especially after his re-election in 2001. Blair's immigration policy and his rhetoric on asylum/low skilled migrants completely out-flanked the Conservatives on the issue and they were forced to back the whole lot in order to keep face. New Labour's re positioning to the right basically ended the positive vs. critical dichotomy on immigration which existed in mainstream British politics at the time and led to a situation where in the 3 elections between 2005 and 2015 the only party who ran with an unashamedly pro-immigration stance was the Greens, with every other party arguing over the minutiae of which immigrants they'd reject and how they'd do it. The fact that none of them would be able to keep any promise on numbers due to free-movement helped UKIP's case enormously.

Excellent post. Especially the last part. It baffles me that parties spent so long being hostile to immigration while simultaneously thinking they'd eternally be able to get away with not addressing the issues they were highlighting at all.
 
I suggest you look at the Blair government's record on immigration policy because basically everything you've written there is nonsense. Miliband's 'controls on immigration' mugs you call 'a disgrace' were a reflection of what had been Labour policy and rhetoric for a decade and a half by that point, thanks largely to Blair.

New Labour's immigration line from 2002 was one of 'Managed Migration'. The Australian-style points system UKIP have campaigned for over the last decade or so was first touted in 2005 as a pre-election policy document by Blair's government. The stated aim of the policy being to 'gain control of borders' and 'manage migration'. Sound familiar?

That policy was fleshed out in 2006 and argued for the creation of a points system based on high-skilled, skilled with job offer, low skilled, students and misc. categories. The IAN act the same year made it more difficult for immigrants to become UK citizens and restricted the right of appeal against immigration rulings. In 2007 the UK Borders Bill proposed giving immigration officers police powers and required that foreign nationals hold a BID (basically an ID card for foreigners). Blair had promised that in a speech to the Labour conference in 2004, vowing that a Labour government re-elected in 2005 would "introduce identity cards and electronic registration of all who cross our borders".

Distrust of the asylum system and of asylum seekers were a hallmark of Blair's domestic policy, to the extent that 'fixing the asylum system' i.e - making it more difficult for asylum seekers to get here and live here, was one of his stated domestic priorities from 2002 onwards. Four acts from 1998 - 2004 were passed specifically to clamp down on asylum claims and restrict the economic activity of those already granted asylum. In the same section of the speech above he also celebrated that "We have cut radically the numbers of failed asylum seekers'" and promised that "by the end of 2005, and for the first time in Britain, we will remove more each month than apply and so restore faith in a system that we know has been abused." Sounds pretty Farage-y doesn't it?

Your last sentence shows a clear lack of knowledge of what Blair actually did when he was in government and the rhetoric he employed, especially after his re-election in 2001. Blair's immigration policy and his rhetoric on asylum/low skilled migrants completely out-flanked the Conservatives on the issue and they were forced to back the whole lot in order to keep face. New Labour's re positioning to the right basically ended the positive vs. critical dichotomy on immigration which existed in mainstream British politics at the time and led to a situation where in the 3 elections between 2005 and 2015 the only party who ran with an unashamedly pro-immigration stance was the Greens, with every other party arguing over the minutiae of which immigrants they'd reject and how they'd do it. The fact that none of them would be able to keep any promise on numbers due to free-movement helped UKIP's case enormously.
Brilliant post.
 
You see, I don't get this, your average UKIP/Brexit supporter is far more in common with your average Labour supporter. English, white, hard working, working class.

Where as your average remain leaning Tory voter is more likely to be a middle class, well educated, professional.

The first group thinks the immigrants are stealing their jobs, the second group realise that they couldn't do their jobs without immigrants.
The second group (in particular the well off ones) tend to favourably perpetuate the scapegoating of immigrants since it diverts the first group from the real underlying causes to their problems - cuts on essential public services, privatisations and tax cuts for the wealthy - ie the same things which keep the gravy train running for them.

You’d be deluded into thinking the right wing bigotry is exclusive to white, working class types, it’s just as prevalent amongst the Tory voting upper echelons, albeit it takes form in a more subtle and indirect manner.
 
The second group (in particular the well off ones) tend to favourably perpetuate the scapegoating of immigrants since it diverts the first group from the real underlying causes to their problems - cuts on essential public services, privatisations and tax cuts for the wealthy - ie the same things which keep the gravy train running for them.

You’d be deluded into thinking the right wing bigotry is exclusive to white, working class types, it’s just as prevalent amongst the Tory voting upper echelons, albeit it takes form in a more subtle and indirect manner.

I think that 'right wing bigotry' is the preserve of people further North, like my dad :nervous:

But, working in London, there are very few of my colleagues and clients, who are pro Brexit.
 
Chief Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks now comparing Corbyn to Enoch Powell. No agenda here then.
 
I think that 'right wing bigotry' is the preserve of people further North, like my dad :nervous:

But, working in London, there are very few of my colleagues and clients, who are pro Brexit.

It really isn't Colin. 3 of the top 5 towns with the highest Brexit voting share we in the South and Kent especially is full of folks with the persuasion you wish to put on Northerner's shoulders exclusively. Shame on you.

London is a bubble. Take a look around.
 
That depends, are UKIP pro-locking 'unspeakable' families in converted shipping containers or concrete bunkers under the M53?

Well he'd definitely be on the extremist fringe, yeah, but maybe you're right. Britain First's first MP?
 
Wonder if his 'concerns about anti-semitism' will prevent him from joining UKIP?
He has resigned the whip... Not resigned from the party
He says he wants to stand as a Labour MP in the next election... If the party don't allow that (because he has resigned the whip) he says he will stand as an independent labour candidate

He got about 75% if the vote in the last election so not sure how that would split if against an official labour candidate
 
He has resigned the whip... Not resigned from the party
He says he wants to stand as a Labour MP in the next election... If the party don't allow that (because he has resigned the whip) he says he will stand as an independent labour candidate

He got about 75% if the vote in the last election so not sure how that would split if against an official labour candidate

He'd already lost a vote of no confidence and he's a nasty twat as @Dobba and I were getting at. If the Labour party do have any pretensions of doing the right thing then kicking him out for good is a no brainer.
 
Last edited:
You see, I don't get this, your average UKIP/Brexit supporter is far more in common with your average Labour supporter. English, white, hard working, working class.

Where as your average remain leaning Tory voter is more likely to be a middle class, well educated, professional.

Not sure this is right really, Colin. There's an overlap in both directions. Plenty of working class kids end up in middle class professions with almost middle class lives. There's plenty that fall somewhere in between and could easily have connections or a pull to either way. Most that aren't pompous or racist go Labour though, in my experience, and a lot of those I know simply want what's best for most people, which also heavily leans towards Labour.
 
if we're actually actually averaging them out your brexit voter is a brainworm conservative in retirement home

the average remain voter is an early thirties professional living in their parents attic
 
Last edited:
Has anyone seen Labour Friends of Apar...Israel's response to Netanyahu's speech from Wednesday yet?
Not yet.

Does anyone understand what the whole LFI is really about? Why would there be such a cluster of this particular brand of ambitious/empathy lacking Labour MPs who are all members and spend all day attacking Corbyn?

Seems bizarre that so many of them would be so motivated by that one cause that they’d allow it to overshadow anything else - even handing advantage to the Tories.

Should we believe the conspiracy theories about the Israeli government buying them off?
 
Can anyone briefly summarise what's going on anyway? I'm barely up to date with this.

Is it the usual backstabbing shithousery and media manipulation winning or something else?
 
Frank Field has quit. Good riddance to bad rubbish I say.

And the leadership has walked into his trap.

He'll probably trigger a by-election which he will win.

He resigned over anti-Semitism, knowing that the rules of the Party would force him to resign his membership. He chose not to, trying to make the Party look like it cared more about kicking out an MP for 40 years than with dealing with anti- Semitism. Sadly, the leadership walked into the trap.
 
Not yet.

Does anyone understand what the whole LFI is really about? Why would there be such a cluster of this particular brand of ambitious/empathy lacking Labour MPs who are all members and spend all day attacking Corbyn?

Seems bizarre that so many of them would be so motivated by that one cause that they’d allow it to overshadow anything else - even handing advantage to the Tories.

Should we believe the conspiracy theories about the Israeli government buying them off?

It always was a mainstream grouping of Labour MPs and Peers designed to strengthen UK-Israeli relations, separate from the JLM, set up after Suez and supporting a two-state solution, the official policy of the Labour Party. Tony Benn was a member, so it did not neatly fit on the left-right division.

Support for Israel does not overshadow anything else. It has been since Corbyn's election to the leadership that real tensions have been brewing between the Corbyn-supporters positions on the Palestinian conflict and the issue of anti-Semitism in the Party.
 
Just on the LFI again, they have a number of supporters who are in the Shadow Cabinet and others who are supportive of the leadership:

http://www.lfi.org.uk/in-parliament/

Labour Friends of Palestine (set up as a private company), aims to counter the pro-Israel lobby's influence (their words), and includes members such as Chris Leslie and Chuka Umunna. Again, this isn't as easy as a left-right or pro-/anti-Corbyn issue:
https://www.lfpme.org/supporters

There are large numbers of organisations affliated to the Labour Party, many of whom are funded from outside sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organisations_associated_with_the_British_Labour_Party
 
And the leadership has walked into his trap.

He'll probably trigger a by-election which he will win.

He resigned over anti-Semitism, knowing that the rules of the Party would force him to resign his membership. He chose not to, trying to make the Party look like it cared more about kicking out an MP for 40 years than with dealing with anti- Semitism. Sadly, the leadership walked into the trap.
:lol:

Yeah, just like Simon Danczuk did.