Laughing
Well-known member
Don't follow Stu?Quite a change from your view just yesterday?
Luciana Berger rejoins Labour Party
- Thread starter TeessideCleveland
- Start date
I can't believe anyone would have that opinion. He is, by far, the most honest leader of party in my lifetime. I think his problem was that he was too honest at times. Lots of people ( would call them right wingers but they falsely call themselves centrists) didn't like what he was saying. The real problem was that they did believe him and they didn't like what a bit of fairness and equality might do to their world.
He was a leader. He was a leader of people which is why he had people chanting his names at festivals, attending rallies etc. He might not have been a very good manager of corporate backstabbers but he was a leader in the true sense of the word. People wanted to follow him because they believed what he was saying which is very rare for a politician. He massively increased political engagement. When I was in my teens and early twenties there weren't many people that really took much notice of politics. It was never discussed but the younger generation are very politically engaged and a lot of that is down to Corbyn. Labour had been floundering for quite a while and nothing much was returning members to the party. Look at the way membership grew, and subsequently fell away when he left the leadership. He gave people a reason to vote for him. Starmer has, so far, been nothing but the box that will be ticked to keep the Tories out.
To say he is not a leader is completely wrong. He is not the best politician (if by best you mean Boris Johnson levels of dishonesty and bull****). He believes in something more than just being in charge and playing politics. The majority of them don't care what happens outside of Westminster where he was less interested about what happens in Westminster.
BlindBoyGrunt
Well-known member
You make a good point about him believing, and he still does. He may be a backbencher now but when you see his interviews and pronouncements on twitter he is still talking better and more consistent politics than just about any current MP.
He would nail a question like this without having to think about it:
Laughing
Well-known member
Unfortunately too many of the electorate didn't think he was a leader. Jo Public wasn't afraid of him.
BlindBoyGrunt
Well-known member
On the first point, the guilable people were told he wasn't a leader.
On point two, that's an admirable trait.
Laughing
Well-known member
You have just taken my comment completely out of context Bbg.
I was responding to nano and his comments.
Scrote
Well-known member
And there we have it again.
If there is a whole bunch of people actively acting against you from a completely different office to deliberately hide what they're doing - how do you deal with it?
Firstly, the sabotage is verifiable fact. To the extent that the people that did it have been quite open about it.
Secondly, 2019 wouldn't have happened if 2017 had gone differently. So yes, the sabotage made him lose two elections.
Genuinely happy for your success.
It's not about being well read in politics though. It's about not throwing trite comparisons with Militant into a conversation about Corbyn/Corbynism.
There was a discussion on twitter earlier today about something Andrew Marr wrote which was very much saying the quiet part out loud. Essentially he was giving his blessing to Labour/Starmer having a go in power because we need a change and the implication was that the media classes - largely unaffected by austerity/poverty etc. - are the ones who shape government.
Letting critical thought go out the window brought us a Coalition, Brexit, Johnson and the current travesty.
Lefty
Well-known member
Is it worth me catching up on this thread?
It seemed to be going down the same route as countless others, with the usual more passionate Corbyn supporters overstating the effect of the opposition against him (both internal and external) and understating his and his teams flaws and incompetence. Actually, I don't think I've seen them admit any.
Case in point.
It seemed to be going down the same route as countless others, with the usual more passionate Corbyn supporters overstating the effect of the opposition against him (both internal and external) and understating his and his teams flaws and incompetence. Actually, I don't think I've seen them admit any.
Case in point.
Lefty
Well-known member
Amen to that.
It is often when we feel very strongly about issues that we are actually, unknowingly, being unduly influence by our instincts and emotions, rather than using our intellect, logic and reason. Perhaps this is something the Left should reflect on just as much as the barmcakes tying themselves in knots over the stupid Rwanda policy.
gregorgregorovich
Well-known member
No, it's probably not worth you catching up on this thread, seeing as it seems you've already made your mind up.
BlindBoyGrunt
Well-known member
I've posted three videos on this thread of Labour big hitters actually stating that they were working against Corbyn. His election campaign guy was bricking it because he thought he was going to win and so he took action.
McNicol and his team were ignoring a huge pile of AS complaints whilst scouring social media for minor infractions going back years, to suspend Corbyn supporters. All corroborated in the subsequent reports.
NEC members diverting money to a seperate secret office without the knowledge or consent of the party leadership, all corroborated.
Any of these points in isolation should cause alarm but taken together they are deeply disturbing and yet they are only part of the story. Why are so many people so determined not to admit what was going on? Closing your eyes doesn't make things go away.
Lefty
Well-known member
I know all this and I agree and have said for years on here that it is a disgrace.
Never the less, you are overstating the effect on the 2017 election and certainly the 2019 election while understating the effect Corbyn and his teams own flaws and incompetence had, if indeed you can even acknowledge they had any.
BlindBoyGrunt
Well-known member
Of course Corbyn has flaws. We all do. Mo Mowlam will have had flaws. However you have no proof we are overstating the effect on the 2017 election. Why didn't the saboteurs, instead of implicating themselves with an avalanche of corruption and dirty deeds that ushered in another six years of even worse corruption and unprecedented amounts of incompetence, just let him lose or even fight tooth and nail to win and then get rid at the earliest possible opportunity?
What motivated them to go to such extremes, do you ever ask yourself that?
Laughing
Well-known member
If you can't control your party you can't lead. Not a single removal of the whip from Corbyn.
He was a poor leader, you can argue the opposite all you like, you will still be wrong. All evidence points to that. He was weak in interviews agreeing to anything he was asked, on the hoof and uncosted. He couldn't control his cabinet, never mind the back benches.
He was reading emails in PMQ's as questions for christ's sake.
He was never given a chance to control them. They were trying to get rid of him before he had even got in. Some people are unmanageable and they are the people that should be removed.
gregorgregorovich
Well-known member
I wish I was as certain about anything, as others seem to be about everything.
When I state an opinion, maybe along the lines of saying "He was a poor leader, you can argue the opposite all you like, you will still be wrong. All evidence points to that" it would still be only my opinion. No amount of assertion would make it a fact.
He was reading e mail's in PMQ'S was a fact. But I recall that very recently, exactly the same was being done by the current leader in PMQ's and that's also a fact.
Laughing
Well-known member
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.
Laughing
Well-known member
Answered this in my previous reply to Greg nano.
Eh? Not heard that criticism before. Wasn't it a big issue for all the sensible centrists when he wouldn't agree in an interview that he was desperate to start launching nukes like all the good leaders are?
Laughing
Well-known member
Financial spending, for example waspi remuneration.