The Ultimate Jeremy Corbyn Thread

Kajjal

Veteran
Location
Wheely World
I must say I have to admire how much your defence of Corbyn is liked, given it does nothing but skirting the issues. :notworthy:

You have completely ignored the corroborating evidence given by Chessum and Lansman I referred to regarding Peston’s description of the Labour Conference.

No of course Johnson being appalling is not a natural bar to his electoral success, not if the Leader/Party of opposition is considered even more appalling by more – isn’t that exactly what the polls and graph above say?

Electoral landscape no longer swings between majorities for the two biggest parties? Sure, but why is that the case? Would LibDem be revived if Corbyn had given strong support to Remain, and cursed the Tory Brexit for what it is at every opportunity? I doubt it - a million reasons exist to split Leavers, but there is only one form of Remain, yet, Corbyn’s fence sitting has succeeded in splitting Remainers, driving supporters to LibDem.

You say it would be irresponsible of Corbyn if he didn’t want a GE before a PV? Given his/Labour’s dreadful unpopularity and FPTP, why is doing so not even more irresponsible, given it is far more likely for Con/BXP to win a majority at a GE than Leave prevailing in a PV, resulting in Brexit without a PV?
It depends on how you see brexit affecting any election. The Lib Dem’s are likely to put various conservative seats under pressure. In the last election until the fair reporting restrictions came in labour made little progress, at which point in a few weeks they turned a 25 point lead into a hung parliament. If brexit does not happen by the end of this month the true Brexit party / Conservative party position will be revealed, neither is likely to want to split the vote losing numerous seats.
 

Diogenes

brr, summer's over
This guff about reporting restrictions has to be addressed. Corbyn did well at the last election partly because of his promises to write off student debt (subsequently backtracked after the vote into an "aspiration") and partly because May was utterly godawful on the campaign - robotic, awkward speeches to empty rooms that the press gleefully reported in all their toe-curling glory.

Polls last month showed Labour have lost six million voters since 2017. That falls on one person.
 

Kajjal

Veteran
Location
Wheely World
This guff about reporting restrictions has to be addressed. Corbyn did well at the last election partly because of his promises to write off student debt (subsequently backtracked after the vote into an "aspiration") and partly because May was utterly godawful on the campaign - robotic, awkward speeches to empty rooms that the press gleefully reported in all their toe-curling glory.

Polls last month showed Labour have lost six million voters since 2017. That falls on one person.
Not like you to criticise Corbyn :whistle:
 
OP
theclaud

theclaud

It's teeceegawnmaaaad
Location
Swansea
I must say I have to admire how much your defence of Corbyn is liked, given it does nothing but skirting the issues. :notworthy:

You have completely ignored the corroborating evidence given by Chessum and Lansman I referred to regarding Peston’s description of the Labour Conference.

No of course Johnson being appalling is not a natural bar to his electoral success, not if the Leader/Party of opposition is considered even more appalling by more – isn’t that exactly what the polls and graph above say?

Electoral landscape no longer swings between majorities for the two biggest parties? Sure, but why is that the case? Would LibDem be revived if Corbyn had given strong support to Remain, and cursed the Tory Brexit for what it is at every opportunity? I doubt it - a million reasons exist to split Leavers, but there is only one form of Remain, yet, Corbyn’s fence sitting has succeeded in splitting Remainers, driving supporters to LibDem.

You say it would be irresponsible of Corbyn if he didn’t want a GE before a PV? Given his/Labour’s dreadful unpopularity and FPTP, why is doing so not even more irresponsible, given it is far more likely for Con/BXP to win a majority at a GE than Leave prevailing in a PV, resulting in Brexit without a PV?
That Chessum and Lansman have gripes about things that happen at conference doesn't make what Peston wrote true or the conference proceedings illegitimate. Chessum's whole piece is about the colossal effort he and like-minded members have put into influencing party position on Brexit. This is its strapline: 'This year’s Labour conference was a dramatic event, in which left wing anti-Brexit activists drove the agenda'; and this is what he says a bit later on: ''Coming out of the Labour conference 2018, anti-Brexit activists felt positive about having pushed the party into including a public vote as a prominent option' and 'We had a well worked out operation among delegates, a large amount of propaganda, five planned fringe meetings, and an army of volunteers.' All of this fine (some of us, believe it or not, are perfectly comfortable with people actually doing politics), and he represents an authentic and perfectly understandable strand of Labour strategy and thinking on Brexit - but it wasn't the one that prevailed at conference. Those of a different view will have worked to different ends. But for accomplished campaigners and resourceful strategists like Chessum and Lansman to be complaining about 'manoeuvres' is a bit silly. If anyone actually cares (Peston certainly doesn't), Seema Chandwani is a good person to follow if you want to understand how this stuff works (and yes it sometimes is arcane, but that doesn't make it corrupt).

View: https://twitter.com/SeemaChandwani/status/1176277712136212480?s=20
 

McWobble

Euthermic
Location
Minkowski Space
Frankly, given the history and implication, I am surprised you feel your saying Corbyn's Brexit policy to be "the best that is on offer" can only be "vaguely interpreted as pro-Corbyn".

Regarding being fooled, I don't know if I would label Corbyn as weak, as you have suggested. If you need proof, you might want to read this. He is certainly undemocratic, foolish even, but not weak - he is solely responsible for keeping the flame of Leave alive against overwhelming objection within Labour, by placing and playing just a handful of loyal Lexiters in the Party.

The bottom line, is that Corbyn is a lifelong committed Leaver, far more so than Johnson is. I do wonder how many Remainers would, like yourself, consider leaving to be a "good compromise", if Corbyn hadn't managed to keep the Leave flame going within Labour, and if he had attacked the Tory for every lie and misstep (e.g. invoke A50, which Corbyn whipped his party to). Don't you?

The bottom line, is that I haven't seen any cogent argument from you as to why a Leave compromise is better for the country than Remain. What makes you think economic self harm that would prevail for decades, and which would only satisfy a minority of a minority, is the best outcome?
So, I reiterate (yet again) my dislike of Corbyn. You respond with a lengthy lecture on Corbyn's failings. As it happens, I share your dislike over Corbyn's autocratic style, and the goings on in the Labour conference were plain dictatorial.

Nevertheless, the only party whose stated policy is to hold a referendum with remain as an option is Labour.

The Tories are pushing no deal - and if anyone thinks that Johnson is a "closet remainer" his actions should disabuse them of that notion. He has come up with an unworkable deal in the full knowledge that it will be rejected by the EU. He is positioning himself to blame the EU so as to deflect the negative effects of a no deal brexit.

The Liberals stated policy is to revoke A50. Whilst this may look like the best option, and therefore the best party to vote for it would be well to remember that a full one third of the electorate voted for a NDB in the EU elections. It is almost inevitable that the Tories, in order to prevent losses the Brexit party will adopt a NDB policy. With which they most likely will win - one third represents a very sizable swing.

You want to avoid the damage of a NDB? At the moment, the only party which has a PV as policy is Labour [1]. Like it or not, the slim chance offered by them is higher than the Libs or Tories - that is why Labour are offering the best - or should I say, least worst - option.

As for the necessity of compromise, it should be plainly obvious that when there are two almost equally matched sides with opposing goals, progress will require both sides to give ground. This is so blindingly obvious it ought not to need stated. As it happens, simply revoking A50 is wrong. There is (or was) a mandate for brexit. This cannot be ignored. The best option is a new PV. (Yes, my position on this has changed over these discussions. I came into this thinking that a fresh referendum/PV would achieve little other than reinforce entrenched positions. Now I'm coming round to thinking that it may in fact be the best means of creaking this deadlock. That, in part, is thanks to your linking of the wikipedia page showing how remain/leave polling has changed over the last 3 years. Which is why I participate in this section: to be enlightened, challenged and sometimes changed. What other point would there be?)

The fundamental causes that led to the 2016 result have not been addressed, particularly that a significant part of the population feel that they have been ignored by the mainstream parties for many years. Until such things are looked at, there will be no consensus, no way forward, and any solution will be temporary, dashed away by the next populist leader. The long term chances of remaining in such chaos is low. You have not heard a "cogent argument as to why leave is better than remain" because that is not my argument. Leave with some form of deal to minimise the damage may be the only practical solution, though.

I also notice you have not responded to my observation that Corbyn's Brexit policy (GE before PV, with Labour sitting on the fence in the meantime) will likely result in a Con/BXP majority Parliament, given Corbyn's exceptional unpopularity and FPTP, which of course would result in no PV and Leave with no CU. Given a PV and Leave with CU are what you say you want, how does that square with your assertion that Corbyn's Brexit policy is "the best that is on offer"?
I haven't responded to it because 1: it's not relevant to the point that I'm making (again!) and 2: it is not at all clear that Corbyn will inevitably lead to a Con/BXP win.

[1] Granted, the Greens will hold a fresh referendum on the EU - but they have no chance of winning a GE.
 

perplexed

Guru
Location
Sheffield
Surely Harman or Beckett, both Labour stalwarts are a reasonable proposition for a temporary leader of a GNU from Labour's perspective. My understanding is that other elements of the Remain Alliance are proposing a number of people, mainly Harman, Beckett and Clarke. They have no long term ambitions as I see it. Corbyn also separates himself (to some degree) from any fallout.

View: https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1180817611866509313?s=20
 
Last edited:

RecordAceFromNew

Swinging Member
Location
West London
I also notice you have not responded to my observation that Corbyn's Brexit policy (GE before PV, with Labour sitting on the fence in the meantime) will likely result in a Con/BXP majority Parliament, given Corbyn's exceptional unpopularity and FPTP, which of course would result in no PV and Leave with no CU. Given a PV and Leave with CU are what you say you want, how does that square with your assertion that Corbyn's Brexit policy is "the best that is on offer"?
I haven't responded to it because 1: it's not relevant to the point that I'm making (again!) and 2: it is not at all clear that Corbyn will inevitably lead to a Con/BXP win.
To put our debate in context, as far as I am concerned it began with your statement:
Corbyn's Brexit policy is far from ideal. It is, however, the best that is on offer.
From where I sit, my asking your response regarding the issue of GE before PV or otherwise is definitely relevant to the points you are making, including and notwithstanding, as you say, you have now come round to PV is best, because afaict Corbyn's Brexit policy can be summarised as follows:

1) GE is first priority
2) If Labour wins the GE, Corbyn will spend 3 months to negotiate a Brexit Deal with the EU
3) A Labour conference will be held whereby the party will decide whether they will support said deal or Remain
4) PV between said deal vs Remain will be held within 6 months

Personally, I am relaxed about 2), 3) and 4), if despite polling at c25% Labour somehow can still win a GE while they could not with c44% in 2017! So the problem, as you say, and which I entirely agree, is:

It is almost inevitable that the Tories, in order to prevent losses the Brexit party will adopt a NDB policy. With which they most likely will win - one third represents a very sizable swing.
I presume we can both agree that some sort of hard Brexit will happen, certainly without a PV, if as is likely Con+BXP win a majority in a GE.

In case there is any misunderstanding, Corbyn has stated that even if he is leading a GNU, he will call a GE before a PV. Given that is an integral part of his Brexit policy, do you still think it is irrelevant to your points?

The fundamental issue, is that Brexit cuts across party lines. Mixing in party politics in a GE, will make No Deal and No PV far more likely.

We can ask ourselves why Corbyn wants to mix the two, and if he had the interests of the nation first and foremost, why not address the huge and potentially extremely damaging Leave vs Remain issue first once and for all, while: a) Remain has now been leading Leave consistently for years, b) it is highly likely that a GNU can and will be formed, in which Corbyn will have a huge say on its remits, if not actually be the leader himself, and c) languishing at c25% at polls and losing positions at nearly every election since 2017, the chance of Labour winning is poor at best!

Could it be because a GE will ensure either: 1) he becomes PM, or 2) Leave under the Tory will happen, which will serve his lifelong project just fine. What has he got to lose?

The poor and the foreigners? Not so much.
 

RecordAceFromNew

Swinging Member
Location
West London
That Chessum and Lansman have gripes about things that happen at conference doesn't make what Peston wrote true or the conference proceedings illegitimate. Chessum's whole piece is about the colossal effort he and like-minded members have put into influencing party position on Brexit. This is its strapline: 'This year’s Labour conference was a dramatic event, in which left wing anti-Brexit activists drove the agenda'; and this is what he says a bit later on: ''Coming out of the Labour conference 2018, anti-Brexit activists felt positive about having pushed the party into including a public vote as a prominent option' and 'We had a well worked out operation among delegates, a large amount of propaganda, five planned fringe meetings, and an army of volunteers.' All of this fine (some of us, believe it or not, are perfectly comfortable with people actually doing politics), and he represents an authentic and perfectly understandable strand of Labour strategy and thinking on Brexit - but it wasn't the one that prevailed at conference. Those of a different view will have worked to different ends. But for accomplished campaigners and resourceful strategists like Chessum and Lansman to be complaining about 'manoeuvres' is a bit silly. If anyone actually cares (Peston certainly doesn't), Seema Chandwani is a good person to follow if you want to understand how this stuff works (and yes it sometimes is arcane, but that doesn't make it corrupt).

View: https://twitter.com/SeemaChandwani/status/1176277712136212480?s=20
Thanks for the link to Chandwani's tweet about the mechanics.

However I find it difficult to agree with you that it is "silly" for "strategists like Chessum and Lansman to be complaining about 'manoeuvres'", when such 'manoeuvres' aim to defeat members given, as you said "nearly everyone in the party is a remainer", by pitching "loyalty to Corbyn" against committing to Remain, as Chessum and Lansman bitterly described. It is perhaps worth remembering that before he was elected as leader, Corbyn promised the membership will decide policy, not him. Doesn't that make the 'manoeuvres' "corrupt"?

Which leads us to the news today, suggesting that Karie Murphy, one of the the 4Ms, has been demoted/exiled due to many sins, including apparently misleading Lansman giving rise to the embarrassing u-turn against Watson, resignation of Fisher etc. etc. The portrait suggests Corbyn is either weak and find it difficult to confront the small, tight Lexiter circle around him, or perhaps he ensures said circle is around him to defeat the majority of members who want Remain to be the unequivocal Labour policy. Which is it?
 

McWobble

Euthermic
Location
Minkowski Space
To put our debate in context, as far as I am concerned it began with your statement:


From where I sit, my asking your response regarding the issue of GE before PV or otherwise is definitely relevant to the points you are making, including and notwithstanding, as you say, you have now come round to PV is best, because afaict Corbyn's Brexit policy can be summarised as follows:

1) GE is first priority
2) If Labour wins the GE, Corbyn will spend 3 months to negotiate a Brexit Deal with the EU
3) A Labour conference will be held whereby the party will decide whether they will support said deal or Remain
4) PV between said deal vs Remain will be held within 6 months

Personally, I am relaxed about 2), 3) and 4), if despite polling at c25% Labour somehow can still win a GE while they could not with c44% in 2017! So the problem, as you say, and which I entirely agree, is:



I presume we can both agree that some sort of hard Brexit will happen, certainly without a PV, if as is likely Con+BXP win a majority in a GE.

In case there is any misunderstanding, Corbyn has stated that even if he is leading a GNU, he will call a GE before a PV. Given that is an integral part of his Brexit policy, do you still think it is irrelevant to your points?

The fundamental issue, is that Brexit cuts across party lines. Mixing in party politics in a GE, will make No Deal and No PV far more likely.

We can ask ourselves why Corbyn wants to mix the two, and if he had the interests of the nation first and foremost, why not address the huge and potentially extremely damaging Leave vs Remain issue first once and for all, while: a) Remain has now been leading Leave consistently for years, b) it is highly likely that a GNU can and will be formed, in which Corbyn will have a huge say on its remits, if not actually be the leader himself, and c) languishing at c25% at polls and losing positions at nearly every election since 2017, the chance of Labour winning is poor at best!

Could it be because a GE will ensure either: 1) he becomes PM, or 2) Leave under the Tory will happen, which will serve his lifelong project just fine. What has he got to lose?

The poor and the foreigners? Not so much.
Given that winning a GE is a somewhat essential enabling step to acting on party policy,it is unsurprising that Labour's policy is of having a GE before a PV. This after all is a statement of intent on the possibility of an imminent GE. I'm struggling to see anything sinister with it.

It is impossible to judge just what will happen in the event of a GNU (GNU? I thought that was something to do with the Free Software Foundation...) I therefore take any Corbyn statement about it with a pinch of salt. It is extremely likely that he'd have to drop his idea of GE before PV in order to form a GNU. Saying that, his statement on the matter seems just a tad silly.

Like @Rusty Nails, I have been (and still am) rather critical of Corbyn. However, I do think the suggestion that he's secretly happy to allow leave under the Conservatives (which certainly means a NDB) extremely unfair. He has been consistent throughout in his position that the UK must leave with a favourable deal. His actions have been quite consistent with this in trying to avoid Johnson's full on NDB.
 
OP
theclaud

theclaud

It's teeceegawnmaaaad
Location
Swansea
the majority of members who want Remain to be the unequivocal Labour policy.
This is where you're going wrong. The majority of members want to remain in the EU rather than leave it, but are mindful of the fact that they were on the losing side in a recent referendum on the matter, and want Labour policy to address the causes of the situation rather than simply overturn the result.
 

Kajjal

Veteran
Location
Wheely World
This is where you're going wrong. The majority of members want to remain in the EU rather than leave it, but are mindful of the fact that they were on the losing side in a recent referendum on the matter, and want Labour policy to address the causes of the situation rather than simply overturn the result.
That is a very key point, wanting to address the key issues such as the damage caused by austerity rather than deny it is a problem and inflict more of the same.
 

RecordAceFromNew

Swinging Member
Location
West London
Like @Rusty Nails, I have been (and still am) rather critical of Corbyn. However, I do think the suggestion that he's secretly happy to allow leave under the Conservatives (which certainly means a NDB) extremely unfair. He has been consistent throughout in his position that the UK must leave with a favourable deal. His actions have been quite consistent with this in trying to avoid Johnson's full on NDB.
If only it was true:

View: https://twitter.com/jolyonmaugham/status/1110957821632434176?lang=en


Of course, that was not the only example, else Remainers would not have abandoned Labour in droves, would they? Would we be where we are, at the cliff of No Deal, *IF* the Leader of the Opposition was a committed Remainer, with half decent ability to lead and communicate?

I am not expecting you to answer it if you can't, but what is this "favourable deal", how can it be better than what we have and yet achievable?
 

RecordAceFromNew

Swinging Member
Location
West London
This is where you're going wrong. The majority of members want to remain in the EU rather than leave it, but are mindful of the fact that they were on the losing side in a recent referendum on the matter, and want Labour policy to address the causes of the situation rather than simply overturn the result.
Your statement presupposes "overturning the result" (i.e. Remain) and addressing the causes of the situation (e.g. austerity I presume) are somehow mutually exclusive or inconsistent, when the simple fact is that addressing said situation will be significantly assisted if the result is overturned.

Firstly where is the logic of making the poor poorer (by delaying the decision to Remain, or Leave of any kind) if the objective is to address the situation (e.g. by making the poor richer and their lives fairer)?

Secondly, how has Corbyn's fence sitting (and in particular refusal to commit to overturning the referendum result) affected Labour's and Corbyn's popularity with the electorates, which needless to say are essential for making his policies, if any, reality?
 
Top Bottom