Luciana Berger rejoins Labour Party

Laughing said:
I don't recall a single example of strong leadership from Corbyn. I can think of multiple examples where he failed in that regard.

As for starmer reading emails they weren't the question. It was done completely differently. He read a recent email from a young lad who didn't want new toys for Christmas, he wanted a home so he could get his old toys out of storage. Then the question followed about what was sunak going to do to guarantee the boy and his family a home.

The context is completely different. Corbyn was inviting questions from the electorate and that was the question at pmq's.

As I said a weak leader. You get 5 questions every 7 days. Use them wisely, he wasted them time and time again. This is an opinion supported by his actions.

Every argument I hear in support of Corbyn blames everyone else, the media, dummy voters, his own party. Nobody who supports him lays any blame at his feet. As leader of the opposition he takes responsibility for that party. It's his responsibility to know what his cabinet and back benches are doing. He didn't or couldn't.
Click to expand...
I supported Corbyn when he was leader of the party I was a member of since 1973, the same as I supported Wilson, Callaghan, Foot, Kinnock, Smith, Blair, Brown, Miliband, Corbyn and Starmer.

As to the point about the PMQ's, yes Corbyn invited questions from the public and read them out, but then in replying to whoever answered on behalf of the Government, he expanded the argument to try to attack the Government, well in my opinion he did.

You can't recall a single example of strong leadership from Corbyn, really. How about the fact, that the Government suffered more defeats in Parliamentary votes, than any other in history. Now, I'm not daft enough to think that couldn't have happened without a deeply divided Tory party. But, the Tory party is just as divided now as it's ever been.

Now, before I start getting accused of being one of Corbyn's cavalry or some other nonsense, it's my opinion that when Corbyn chose to stand for the leadership, the left chose the wrong candidate. Having met and spoken with both men, I think John McDonell should have stood.

The main personal problem with Corbyn was that he believed in a better, nicer way of doing politics, his words not mine, for instance by not withdrawing the whip from rebellious Labour MPs. By not imposing 3 line whips on crucial votes. However if he had, that would have resulted in the Labour Party almost ceasing to exist, in my opinion.


Now, if you think, the media, the Parliamentary Labour party and the Labour Party machinery didn't play a role in the 2 defeats, well I think you're being incredibly disingenuous.

It may be the way I was trained, and it may be due to the job I worked in, but if you have a weak member of the team, even if it's the leader of the team, you help and support them particularly against your enemies.
 
Laughing said:
He was reading emails in PMQ's as questions for christ's sake.
Click to expand...

Corbyn did indeed use emails at PMQs. He had seen how the "event" had descended into a Punch and Judy show with childish scripted jokes and insults replacing the answers that the electorate deserved, so he attempted to personalise it using Sue from Barnsley. Cameron was too shameless for that though and the brazen performances continued even when he was talking about real people rather than a generalised example.

At least Corbyn made an attempt to change this toxic culture when nobody else has, and look where we are now. What do we do?
 
gregorgregorovich said:
Now, before I start getting accused of being one of Corbyn's cavalry or some other nonsense,
Click to expand...
That's fair enough it is nonsense and I'll hold my hands up. Presumably you feel the same way about other posters accused of being Starmerites, belonging to the Cult of Starmer etc? And regarding the man himself, you'll agree it's complete nonsense and indeed childish to be calling him a cnut or Sir Kid Starver or Keith Stalin etc. etc.

Like you I've supported every Labour leader since I was a teenager and I've always voted for the Labour candidate in the Parliamentary constituency I lived in at the time. Voting for local minor celebrities as a form of protest is meaningless and not for me.

My view is that we have a leader and a party that needs our support. Sure we can criticise and offer opinions on policy and perceived direction of travel but the Labour Party is not a party of protest any longer. It must be given the opportunity to govern.

It is absurd to criticise the failings of the current leader by referring to the strengths of the previous leader without recognising that Corbyn himself had major weaknesses and that Starmer has many positive attributes.
 
Last edited:
LessoftheLip said:
That's fair enough it is nonsense and I'll hold my hands up. Presumably you feel the same way about other posters accused of being Starmerites, belonging to the Cult of Starmer etc? And regarding the man himself, you'll agree it's complete nonsense and indeed childish to be calling him a cnut or Sir Kid Starver or Keith Stalin etc. etc.
Click to expand...
This goes on a lot though, with people from both sides of the argument. Only this week Muttley said to me "I'm sorry you are starting to sound like a cult member." in response to me stating quite rightly that Corbyn faced sabotage. You will find though that Corbyn and his supporters were subject to this kind of treatment long before anyone had even heard of Starmer, let alone him becoming leader, and people will kick back, especially when they believe that they have genuine misgivings about the current boss.
 
gregorgregorovich said:
I supported Corbyn when he was leader of the party I was a member of since 1973, the same as I supported Wilson, Callaghan, Foot, Kinnock, Smith, Blair, Brown, Miliband, Corbyn and Starmer.

As to the point about the PMQ's, yes Corbyn invited questions from the public and read them out, but then in replying to whoever answered on behalf of the Government, he expanded the argument to try to attack the Government, well in my opinion he did.

You can't recall a single example of strong leadership from Corbyn, really. How about the fact, that the Government suffered more defeats in Parliamentary votes, than any other in history. Now, I'm not daft enough to think that couldn't have happened without a deeply divided Tory party. But, the Tory party is just as divided now as it's ever been.

Now, before I start getting accused of being one of Corbyn's cavalry or some other nonsense, it's my opinion that when Corbyn chose to stand for the leadership, the left chose the wrong candidate. Having met and spoken with both men, I think John McDonell should have stood.

The main personal problem with Corbyn was that he believed in a better, nicer way of doing politics, his words not mine, for instance by not withdrawing the whip from rebellious Labour MPs. By not imposing 3 line whips on crucial votes. However if he had, that would have resulted in the Labour Party almost ceasing to exist, in my opinion.


Now, if you think, the media, the Parliamentary Labour party and the Labour Party machinery didn't play a role in the 2 defeats, well I think you're being incredibly disingenuous.

It may be the way I was trained, and it may be due to the job I worked in, but if you have a weak member of the team, even if it's the leader of the team, you help and support them particularly against your enemies.
Click to expand...
Quite a lot to unpick there. Firstly I don't disagree with some of what you say. Trying to do politics differently and move away from the jeering and whistling. He did say this and did try to do this. It didn't work though and probably never will whilst parliament has its antiquated rules and processes. It doesn't say anything about his leadership though.

He did defeat lots of votes, however there was a much smaller majority for the tories and it was during brexit when the tories were voting against their leadership also.

Withdrawing the whip may have destroyed the party, the threat of withdrawing the whip, probably not and given how divisive the party were being he should have stood up to them.

I do think he had plenty of problems to deal with outside of his own party. Any labour leader will face that. Perhaps don't invite it with your actions.

I liked Corbyn he seemed to be a thoroughly decent man and my criticism isn't personal. He was just never leader material. The public never took to him conservative voters were given so much material they could shout down arguments in the pub and stifle debate. It didn't matter that they were talking nonsense, only that enough people could fasten on to those memes.

I voted for Labour in the ge BTW.
 
LessoftheLip said:
That's fair enough it is nonsense and I'll hold my hands up. Presumably you feel the same way about other posters accused of being Starmerites, belonging to the Cult of Starmer etc? And regarding the man himself, you'll agree it's complete nonsense and indeed childish to be calling him a cnut or Sir Kid Starver or Keith Stalin etc. etc.

Like you I've supported every Labour leader since I was a teenager and I've always voted for the Labour candidate in the Parliamentary constituency I lived in at the time. Voting for local minor celebrities as a form of protest is meaningless and not for me.

My view is that we have a leader and a party that needs our support. Sure we can criticise and offer opinions on policy and perceived direction of travel but the Labour Party is not a party of protest any longer. It must be given the opportunity to govern.

It us absurd to criticise the failings of the current leader by referring to the strengths of the previous leader without recognising that Corbyn himself had major weaknesses and that Starmer has many positive attributes.
Click to expand...
Yes, I do agree with you about name calling, from both sides and I do try not to do it ( not sure if I've always succeeded though).

Until it gets into power, the Labour party is and always should be a party of protest, as it has over the Rwanda bill for example and if you think I've only ever criticised the current leader, nothing could be further from the truth. I've met and 'spoken' with a few of them up to the point that the Sergeant at Arms threatened to throw me out of the main hall at Westminster. Again' if you think , I've criticised Stramer unfairly, you should hear me on a night out when I'm continually attacking the Tories and trying to get anyone and everyone to vote Labour.

My main problem at the minute is the sheer hypocrisy shown by the executive and maybe by the leadership of the Party, when it comes to investigating and then disciplining members on the left of the party compared to those on the right of the party. The most minor infraction of the rules by those on the left is punished to the absolute extreme, whilst more serious allegations against those on the right are barely questioned never mind investigated. We have left wing Jewish members being thrown out for being anti semitic, just reread that sentence to understand the absurdity of what is going on. Locally, we have a member who is about to be expelled, who only a short while ago was being asked to stand as a candidate in the local elections. We have a local MP whose investigation seems to be taking forever.

I do recognise that Corbyn had major weaknesses as a person and as a leader, I'm sure that's true of every leader Labour has ever had though, but the policies which were proposed by Labour, especially in 2017 were hugely popular and still are as far as opinion polls on them indicate.

I will end this post with something I haven't used in a while but maybe it needs an airing again, TORIES OUT.
 
Laughing said:
Quite a lot to unpick there. Firstly I don't disagree with some of what you say. Trying to do politics differently and move away from the jeering and whistling. He did say this and did try to do this. It didn't work though and probably never will whilst parliament has its antiquated rules and processes. It doesn't say anything about his leadership though.

He did defeat lots of votes, however there was a much smaller majority for the tories and it was during brexit when the tories were voting against their leadership also.

Withdrawing the whip may have destroyed the party, the threat of withdrawing the whip, probably not and given how divisive the party were being he should have stood up to them.

I do think he had plenty of problems to deal with outside of his own party. Any labour leader will face that. Perhaps don't invite it with your actions.

I liked Corbyn he seemed to be a thoroughly decent man and my criticism isn't personal. He was just never leader material. The public never took to him conservative voters were given so much material they could shout down arguments in the pub and stifle debate. It didn't matter that they were talking nonsense, only that enough people could fasten on to those memes.

I voted for Labour in the ge BTW.
Click to expand...
I have a lot of sympathy with this view. I've always thought Corbyn's heart was in the right place but he was too weak. As an example, he should have sacked Starmer when he departed from the script in his 2018 conference speech to promise a second referendum. I'm fairly confident Corbyn became leader by accident - standing as the token left-wing candidate in a leadership election he never expected to win. He's not a natural leader or a shameless liar; you need to be at least one of them to succeed these days. For anyone in doubt, Starmer falls into the second category.
 
Laughing said:
Quite a lot to unpick there. Firstly I don't disagree with some of what you say. Trying to do politics differently and move away from the jeering and whistling. He did say this and did try to do this. It didn't work though and probably never will whilst parliament has its antiquated rules and processes. It doesn't say anything about his leadership though.

He did defeat lots of votes, however there was a much smaller majority for the tories and it was during brexit when the tories were voting against their leadership also.

Withdrawing the whip may have destroyed the party, the threat of withdrawing the whip, probably not and given how divisive the party were being he should have stood up to them.

I do think he had plenty of problems to deal with outside of his own party. Any labour leader will face that. Perhaps don't invite it with your actions.

I liked Corbyn he seemed to be a thoroughly decent man and my criticism isn't personal. He was just never leader material. The public never took to him conservative voters were given so much material they could shout down arguments in the pub and stifle debate. It didn't matter that they were talking nonsense, only that enough people could fasten on to those memes.

I voted for Labour in the ge BTW.
Click to expand...
There's a fair bit to 'unpick' there as well, in my opinion. But, maybe I've answered some of them in my reply to LOTL.
 
Personally I did like the 2017 manifesto. Talking to a couple friends, one of whom who was an adviser / researcher for several Labour mp’s at the time. He was an architect and was passionate about social housing, was aware of what was going on in the party at the time.
It sent a shudder through elements in the parliamentary party and outside when he was elected leader, especially the 59.5% mandate.
It was going to take a lot of undermining to remove him, but elements, who would normally cross the road to avoid each other came together and did it.
I never believed the moment from when he was elected leader he would ever be allowed to become Prime Minister.
Our country is not governed by, or ever has been, by people we think govern it.
Paranoid moi…abso..f’kn..lutely!

A bill of rights, encoded constitution and proportional representation. Let’s start from there.
 
Nothing a matter with strong opinions, politics can get very heated and is all the better for it.
We`ve had 14 years of these good for nothings, if there is such a thing as democracy in the UK, its the perfect time to see it in action and that it exists.

Like or loathe Starmer, as a voter Id be letting a lot of helpless people down if I didnt vote for Labour. I've a feeling it is going to be a tall order, we are battling against gerrymandering, and the political establishment machine.
 
mercury_redstone7 said:
Nothing a matter with strong opinions, politics can get very heated and is all the better for it.
We`ve had 14 years of these good for nothings, if there is such a thing as democracy in the UK, its the perfect time to see it in action and that it exists.

Like or loathe Starmer, as a voter Id be letting a lot of helpless people down if I didnt vote for Labour. I've a feeling it is going to be a tall order, we are battling against gerrymandering, and the political establishment machine.
Click to expand...
Pretty much my position mercury. I am not a fan of Starmer, but I am even less of a fan of letting children go cold, hungry and homeless.

Principles are all well and good if you can feed, home and cloth your kids. It's not so easy for the million children and their parents in abject poverty. "let's give labour a bloody nose" just doesn't add up for me.
 
Well said.
We all have more in common than divides us. Its a chance to make a difference to help those that need it most. I include myself. if we don't vote Labour what use are we?

There's 7 million people waiting to have their health improved and stop the pain and suffering.
 
Laughing said:
"let's give labour a bloody nose" just doesn't add up for me.
Click to expand...
I don't think that anyone on this site is saying that. Politics in this country - especially as conducted by the two dominant parties - desperately needs overhauling. Holding my nose to get the Tories out is so short termist and won't change anything. There are no real politicians left, just snake oil salesmen and purveyors of lies and deceit who seem quite comfortable about maintaining the hegemony of the big two. It's a bit like watching Everton and Forest being dragged over the coals whilst Man City are allowed to carry on.
 
Laughing said:
Pretty much my position mercury. I am not a fan of Starmer, but I am even less of a fan of letting children go cold, hungry and homeless.

Principles are all well and good if you can feed, home and cloth your kids. It's not so easy for the million children and their parents in abject poverty. "let's give labour a bloody nose" just doesn't add up for me.
Click to expand...
I'm not a fan of letting kids go homeless and hungry in Gaza. I'm not sure the same can be said for Starmer.
 
BlindBoyGrunt said:
I don't think that anyone on this site is saying that. Politics in this country - especially as conducted by the two dominant parties - desperately needs overhauling. Holding my nose to get the Tories out is so short termist and won't change anything. There are no real politicians left, just snake oil salesmen and purveyors of lies and deceit who seem quite comfortable about maintaining the hegemony of the big two. It's a bit like watching Everton and Forest being dragged over the coals whilst Man City are allowed to carry on.
Click to expand...
And I don't disagree with the principle BBG. The reality is how many will continue to suffer if the tories get another term. Triage is required right now. We can look at the broken bones later, let's deal with those in immeadiate danger first.
 
Laughing said:
I am not sure what your argument is Jack? I am even less sure of what solution you might propose?
Click to expand...
This is the level every 'discussion' descends to. Starmer is to blame for everything. Not Sunak or Netanyahu or Biden or Macron or Putin. Just Starmer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top