Labour Party purge/staff cuts.

Same_as_before

Well-known member
I will say this again, Labour is better than any alternative I can see, it should be inclusive from Corbyn to Mandelson. To say you won't vote Labour because of ...is an out.

The Tories have always run rings around us, it's so sad.
 

Lefty

Well-known member
Some people just aren't understanding my position, either because they aren't reading what I'm writing properly or because they just don't understand what Labour were like under the Corbyn 'project'.

I have repeatedly criticised the PLP for working against Corbyn from the moment he took over until the 2017 election was called. They did not respect the democratic decision of the members and that was disgraceful. To actively work to undermine Jeremy, with some really quite nasty, appalling and disloyal tactics, was disgusting.

However, there are a few things that could be considered justification for that. The first is that they all knew him. Very few disliked him personally, by the way, but they knew him, knew his qualities and his particular passions and judged he was not cut out to be a leader and not electable by the country as a PM. So, as ethically questionable as their actions were, when they turn out to be right, they do have that big picture/greater good justification.

The argument against that is that actively working against Corbyn, undermining him, because you don't believe he is electable, becomes a self fulfilling prophesy, contributing to him not being elected. Whereas getting behind him might have been sufficient, in a close result, to have got the Party elected.

That is a reasonable argument when it comes to the 2017 election. I've set that out for the avoidance of doubt that I might not understand this. I do not dispute a more united Labour Party, working together behind Jeremy rather than undermining him, could have led to more seats. It probably would have. I felt that way at the time and my initial disgust at the PLP for their actions over the previous couple of years was only increased by the close result.

And for some further clarification, my opinion of Tony Blair is that he is the best PM in my lifetime. That does not mean I am a Blairite. I am certainly to the left of him. It does not mean I was happy with everything he did. I thought he could have done more. I argued passionately with people on here and still take the view that the country should have put him on trial for the invasion of Iraq. I helped Reg Keys campaign for that both with my time and my money. At least we got a thorough enquiry (Chilcot) in the end and cemented Blair's guilt in the court of public opinion. Unlike a lot of people who hear the name Tony Blair, I don't instantly think 'Iraq War Criminal'. It is perfectly correct to think he was a great PM domestically, but didn't get everything right and could have done more and it is perfectly correct to look at his Foreign policy decisions and realise that his efforts over Peace in Northern Ireland and his decision to intervene in Kosovo and Sierra Leone were decisions and actions worthy of Peace and Humanitarian prizes, while his decision over Iraq was a mistake, had disastrous consequences and ought to have led to a trial and more formal consequences for him, for the good of the country and as a warning for future PM's to utilise better decision making processes that adhere to critical thinking skills.

Similarly it is perfectly reasonable to take a view that the PLP were wrong to undermine Corbyn prior to the 2017 election, but they were correct about him being unsuited to the leadership position and being unelectable as PM. He wasn't.

It is also perfectly right to take the view that the PLP behaved appallingly up to 2017 and Corbyn's inner circle behaved appallingly between 2017 and 2019.

Both are true, but the far left were worse and more disastrous for the country.

Some people seem to think that in 2017 Corbyn was close to winning the most seats. 325 seats were required for a majority. The Conservatives got 317. Corbyn got 262. The PLP skullduggery would not have made Corbyn PM, it would possibly have made a difference in a handful of seats. To become PM he would have needed to form a coalition and compromise. Yet he couldn't even compromise with his best friend in Parliament for 30 years and in the course of the next two he alienated all the other parties.
 

SuperStu

Well-known member
knew his qualities and his particular passions and judged he was not cut out to be a leader

If you think the PLP sabotaged Corbyn the way they did simply because of not thinking his leadership skills were up to it you're very naive.

Corbyn's inner circle behaved appallingly between 2017 and 2019

?

Both are true, but the far left were worse and more disastrous for the country.

:rolleyes:
 

Same_as_before

Well-known member
Blair was and is heavily cricitised for Iraq.

Today in China Muslims are being murdered with all civil liberties removed, in Rwanda almost 1m people were slaughtered, we did and do nothing. Who is criticised for this?
 

Lefty

Well-known member
If you think the PLP sabotaged Corbyn the way they did simply because of not thinking his leadership skills were up to it you're very naive.
I don't know if this is deliberate, or whether I haven't explained myself sufficiently, Stu, but this is a misrepresentation of my opinion.

I don't think the PLP sabotaged Corbyn 'simply' (by which you mean 'only') because of not thinking his leadership 'skills' were up to it.

It isn't only his 'skills' but also passions and policies, the choices he made and perhaps more importantly the decisions he wouldn't make. Being a leader requires a lot of qualities and very few people are cut out for it. Corbyn wasn't. Corbyn is good, very good on certain issues, and poor on others. You have to be an all rounder unfortunately.

Then there are personal skills. Corbyn doesn't like confrontation, so he avoids it. That might make him a nice man, but it makes him a poor choice for leader of the Labour Party and the country.

Some of his priorities are questionable too. His position on Palestine, the Chagos Islanders and the UK arms industry are admirable and spot on, but they are not a priority for 99% of the British public.

Corbyn never wanted to be leader, didn't expect to be, wasn't prepared. He grew into it a little, but he wasn't suited. He might have made a decent Foreign Secretary, but not leader. That was why he was allowed to stand, the ordinary MP's, to the right of him, weren't worried about him becoming leader. They wrongly took it for granted the rest of the Party had the same insight as them. Whereas MacDonell they feared, not only for his far left inclinations policy wise, but also because his intellect, ruthlessness, and ability to compromise when needed would have made him effective. That's why he got no-where near a nomination, sadly.
 

Lefty

Well-known member
Lefty said:
Corbyn's inner circle behaved appallingly between 2017 and 2019.



It appears you haven't read some of the articles in the links I put up earlier, which cover the two biggest issues Corbyn had to address leading to the 2019 General Election.



You earlier accused me of being one eyed, but actually I am the one looking at both sides. I've used words like 'disgusting', 'disgraceful' and 'appalling' to describe the actions of the PLP/right of the Party and I mean it. Where is your analysis of the Left, where is the evidence you have even been prepared to look at them critically. It appears you have nothing critical to offer.

I'll offer up a podcast from September 2020 that is worth listening to


It gives a reasonable summing up of the journalists very balanced book


The takeaway you should get from it, if you are balanced, is that the PLP/right were dreadful but ALSO that the Corbynites were too. It is important to remember that by the 2019 General Election it was the Corbynites who were in charge and most, though not all, of the internal opposition had receded. So they own the defeat more than anyone. If you can't see or acknowledge that, you need to look first to yourselves and your own internal biases, rather than throwing mud only at everyone else.
 

bear66

Well-known member
It appears you haven't read some of the articles in the links I put up earlier, which cover the two biggest issues Corbyn had to address leading to the 2019 General Election.



You earlier accused me of being one eyed, but actually I am the one looking at both sides. I've used words like 'disgusting', 'disgraceful' and 'appalling' to describe the actions of the PLP/right of the Party and I mean it. Where is your analysis of the Left, where is the evidence you have even been prepared to look at them critically. It appears you have nothing critical to offer.

I'll offer up a podcast from September 2020 that is worth listening to


It gives a reasonable summing up of the journalists very balanced book


The takeaway you should get from it, if you are balanced, is that the PLP/right were dreadful but ALSO that the Corbynites were too. It is important to remember that by the 2019 General Election it was the Corbynites who were in charge and most, though not all, of the internal opposition had receded. So they own the defeat more than anyone. If you can't see or acknowledge that, you need to look first to yourselves and your own internal biases, rather than throwing mud only at everyone else.
A lot of Tory voters changed to Labour as well. The net loss of votes from Labour to Tory was approximately 800,000. 2 million people who voted Tory had never voted before (not first time 18 year olds but older voters who just hadn't voted before). I doubt if many of those 2 million voted for any reason other than Brexit.
 

BlindBoyGrunt

Well-known member
I don't know if this is deliberate, or whether I haven't explained myself sufficiently, Stu, but this is a misrepresentation of my opinion.

I don't think the PLP sabotaged Corbyn 'simply' (by which you mean 'only') because of not thinking his leadership 'skills' were up to it.

It isn't only his 'skills' but also passions and policies, the choices he made and perhaps more importantly the decisions he wouldn't make. Being a leader requires a lot of qualities and very few people are cut out for it. Corbyn wasn't. Corbyn is good, very good on certain issues, and poor on others. You have to be an all rounder unfortunately.

Then there are personal skills. Corbyn doesn't like confrontation, so he avoids it. That might make him a nice man, but it makes him a poor choice for leader of the Labour Party and the country.

Some of his priorities are questionable too. His position on Palestine, the Chagos Islanders and the UK arms industry are admirable and spot on, but they are not a priority for 99% of the British public.

Corbyn never wanted to be leader, didn't expect to be, wasn't prepared. He grew into it a little, but he wasn't suited. He might have made a decent Foreign Secretary, but not leader. That was why he was allowed to stand, the ordinary MP's, to the right of him, weren't worried about him becoming leader. They wrongly took it for granted the rest of the Party had the same insight as them. Whereas MacDonell they feared, not only for his far left inclinations policy wise, but also because his intellect, ruthlessness, and ability to compromise when needed would have made him effective. That's why he got no-where near a nomination, sadly.
Talk about rewriting history. They didn't go after Corbyn because he was a poor leader because they didn't give him time to be a poor leader. The reason they attempted a coup on his leadership was purely political. He opposed Trident, austerity and involvement in Syria. If their gripe with Corbyn was about his ability to do the job they should of taken him on on that platform. Instead they accused him of anti-Semitism, of being a Russian spy, and of sympathising with the IRA. All total lies designed to bring the man down. Why is it that Labour under Starmer (that famous all rounder) are still attacking the left. There are no left wingers in his shadow cabinet, and people like RLB were sacked for spurious reasons.

Only this weekend the London Labour Conference was censored. People were removed from the debate for questioning Corbyn's non reinstatement to the party and for enquiring when the Forde report would be published. Later the closing speaker Kathryn Johnson was first muted and then the conference was abruptly terminated with no explanation. It begs the question, why is this happening? Not because the former leader wasn't up to the job that's for sure. The people running the party now are moving it to the right and despite what they say about wanting to be a broad church they are removing democratic socialists from what is essentially a Democratic Socialist Party.

Labour are literally becoming the Lib Dems; they have no room for socialists and they don't even pretend that they do. Some broad church that is.
 

Lefty

Well-known member
Talk about rewriting history. They didn't go after Corbyn because he was a poor leader because they didn't give him time to be a poor leader. The reason they attempted a coup on his leadership was purely political. He opposed Trident, austerity and involvement in Syria. If their gripe with Corbyn was about his ability to do the job they should of taken him on on that platform. Instead they accused him of anti-Semitism, of being a Russian spy, and of sympathising with the IRA. All total lies designed to bring the man down. Why is it that Labour under Starmer (that famous all rounder) are still attacking the left. There are no left wingers in his shadow cabinet, and people like RLB were sacked for spurious reasons.

Only this weekend the London Labour Conference was censored. People were removed from the debate for questioning Corbyn's non reinstatement to the party and for enquiring when the Forde report would be published. Later the closing speaker Kathryn Johnson was first muted and then the conference was abruptly terminated with no explanation. It begs the question, why is this happening? Not because the former leader wasn't up to the job that's for sure. The people running the party now are moving it to the right and despite what they say about wanting to be a broad church they are removing democratic socialists from what is essentially a Democratic Socialist Party.

Labour are literally becoming the Lib Dems; they have no room for socialists and they don't even pretend that they do. Some broad church that is.

FFS, still Corbyn and co did no wrong! It's all everyone else's fault, isn't it?

When, prior to the 2017 General Election, Corbyn was being attacked for his anti nuclear stance and Andrew Neil tried to pin him on it during his interview, Corbyn brilliantly shut it down for the rest of the campaign with his memorable and feisty 'it isn't in the manifesto because we're not going to do it' retort. Yet when it came to anti-semitism, anti-terrorism or Brexit, he just couldn't manage to be similarly clear and succinct. Terrible. You think Blair would have been so poor? Or Wilson? Would they have allowed themselves to be so trapped, or surrounded themselves with a team that would allow it? Incompetence is an understatement.
 

bear66

Well-known member
FFS, still Corbyn and co did no wrong! It's all everyone else's fault, isn't it?

When, prior to the 2017 General Election, Corbyn was being attacked for his anti nuclear stance and Andrew Neil tried to pin him on it during his interview, Corbyn brilliantly shut it down for the rest of the campaign with his memorable and feisty 'it isn't in the manifesto because we're not going to do it' retort. Yet when it came to anti-semitism, anti-terrorism or Brexit, he just couldn't manage to be similarly clear and succinct. Terrible. You think Blair would have been so poor? Or Wilson? Would they have allowed themselves to be so trapped, or surrounded themselves with a team that would allow it? Incompetence is an understatement.
Blair and Wilson had a broad church on their front benches, as did Corbyn . . . till some walked. Starmer is no Blair, Wilson or Corbyn with only the right of the party in shadow positions.
 

Lefty

Well-known member
Blair and Wilson had a broad church on their front benches, as did Corbyn . . . till some walked. Starmer is no Blair, Wilson or Corbyn with only the right of the party in shadow positions.

Blair and Wilson corralled a broad church. It wasn't luck.

Corbyn alienated them. Initially, largely not his fault, but disgraceful, undemocratic, though earnest behaviour from the PLP, as I have said quite a few times now. Latterly ie post 2017 election, he, Milne and Murphy and co can be blamed.

Starmer, we have to wait and see if the Left decide they want to win or prolong the era of the Bluekip Conservatives they ushered in.
 

Same_as_before

Well-known member
Talk about rewriting history. They didn't go after Corbyn because he was a poor leader because they didn't give him time to be a poor leader. The reason they attempted a coup on his leadership was purely political. He opposed Trident, austerity and involvement in Syria. If their gripe with Corbyn was about his ability to do the job they should of taken him on on that platform. Instead they accused him of anti-Semitism, of being a Russian spy, and of sympathising with the IRA. All total lies designed to bring the man down. Why is it that Labour under Starmer (that famous all rounder) are still attacking the left. There are no left wingers in his shadow cabinet, and people like RLB were sacked for spurious reasons.

Only this weekend the London Labour Conference was censored. People were removed from the debate for questioning Corbyn's non reinstatement to the party and for enquiring when the Forde report would be published. Later the closing speaker Kathryn Johnson was first muted and then the conference was abruptly terminated with no explanation. It begs the question, why is this happening? Not because the former leader wasn't up to the job that's for sure. The people running the party now are moving it to the right and despite what they say about wanting to be a broad church they are removing democratic socialists from what is essentially a Democratic Socialist Party.

Labour are literally becoming the Lib Dems; they have no room for socialists and they don't even pretend that they do. Some broad church that is.
I was pretty much kicked out for being Blairite. There has always been cliques some years the left dominates then the right.
 

bear66

Well-known member
Blair and Wilson corralled a broad church. It wasn't luck.

Corbyn alienated them. Initially, largely not his fault, but disgraceful, undemocratic, though earnest behaviour from the PLP, as I have said quite a few times now. Latterly ie post 2017 election, he, Milne and Murphy and co can be blamed.

Starmer, we have to wait and see if the Left decide they want to win or prolong the era of the Bluekip Conservatives they ushered in.
Why isn't Starmer corralling a broad church? He's failed from day one.
 

Juan-sheet

Well-known member
Well it seems Starmer is finally killing off socialism within the labour party as I'm hearing Ken Loach has been expelled.
 

SuperStu

Well-known member
It appears you haven't read some of the articles in the links I put up earlier, which cover the two biggest issues Corbyn had to address leading to the 2019 General Election.


Just read this first one. I'm not sure why you think this is some ace in the hole. It's a bitter author complaining that Corbyn wasn't willing to devote a load of time to humiliating himself self flagellating about being such an awful anti semite in his book. Who would?

The rest of it's just gossip about him and McDonnell falling out.

"begging his leader to make serious overtures to his old enemies on the party and have a unity shadow cabinet; trying to stop his leader from taking disciplinary action against Jewish MP Margaret Hodge for calling Corbyn an anti-Semite;"

Well these both happened, so they can't have fought that badly?

I'll give the next one a try but just to clarify the both sides-ism from this first article - the Labour right were bad for sabotaging constantly for 5 years, losing Labour two elections and lumping us with tories for the next few decades. But the Labour left are just as bad cause Corbyn wouldn't give the right the top shad cab jobs (again (after the coup)) and might possibly have wanted to punish Hodge but ultimately didn't anyway? That's the equivalence?
 
Top
X