BlindBoyGrunt
Well-known member
You tell me (though five will get you ten you'll be wrong).Why did he get “asked to leave” the Labour Party
You tell me (though five will get you ten you'll be wrong).Why did he get “asked to leave” the Labour Party
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54746452You tell me (though five will get you ten you'll be wrong).
You seem to be an intellectual giant, you tell me.
It’s all in the link I posted .. have you read it ? What do you think ?You seem to be an intellectual giant, you tell me.
Nothing great to offer then.Yes that's normally how elections are won
He didn't get "asked to leave".Why did he get “asked to leave” the Labour Party
Just like busses, one ridiculous statement can follow another.ah… so he was kidding about his view on isreal all along .. maybe his IRA sympathy was him showing how much he loves the uk also .. in some ironic way
I don't want to get into a big argument about this again, we've been there a million times.Wrong way round, as always. The left were trying to win an election and assumed everyone was working towards that. There's no evidence (that I've seen) to even suggest the left were in any way not engaging with other factions. They may not have agreed with them, or run with their ideas, but the engagement was there - why do you think Corbyn made sure his first cabinet had MPs from all factions?
If you wanted rid of Corbyn and you thought you had a better idea of where funding should be spent, you'd sit back and let Corbyn fail.
Moving funds into safe seats wasn't a strategy that would improve Labour's chances - as you've alluded to yourself it's exactly the opposite that has worked so well for Labour in 2024.
A secret office was set up. It was a well organised operation to undermine the leadership. Just think what might have happened if the same energy had been put into actually winning the election.
If secretive cabals are so easy to 'sort out', why do so many succeed with coups, assassinations etc. They usually only fail when they are betrayed from within.
It doesn't matter where the funds went. It mattered where they were diverted from. As you keep saying, seats matter. But in 2017 it was Tory seats that mattered. The Tories were expected to extend their existing majority. The election ended in a hung Parliament. <3000 votes in the right places were the difference between May being able to form a government and Labour being the main player in a left-if-centre coalition.
If that funding hadn't been wasted where it wasn't needed then those 3000 votes might have materialised. I think Tom Watson was one of the MPs who had funding diverted to his campaign - he had a 9.5k majority in 2015. He'd have had a 4k majority with the same votes in 2019, ending up with 7.5k or 3500 extra votes. If that was the result of extra funding there then it's hard not to speculate on what could have been if the sabotage hadn't occurred.
But Brexit wasn't lost in the red wall due to Corbyn. It was lost due to the utter lack of investment and opportunity that allowed Farage et al to influence people with their fairytales.
However, if you want to blame Labour, then you have to remember that Corbyn's constituents voted Remain at about 70%. Labour MPs in the red wall didn't do enough to explain the issues with Brexit to their constituents.
She lost her majority. That's a historical and mathematical fact. You can't spin it any other way.
I agree. It was the same people who went after Corbyn who did for Miliband - mainly because they'd wanted his brother to win. Again, the right of the party putting factional preference above party (and national) interests.
I don't follow any of this. 2019 was forced on the Tories. They didn't call the election willingly.
Agreed. Onwards and upwards. There's still a huge battle ahead and a lot of convincing required.
I know, I knowYour comment, "so will reply briefly", brought a smile to my face. Just what I've needed after a difficult few weeks.:)
Whilst some is down to interpretation, a lot is a matter of historical record.A lot of this is down to interpretation
The "secret office" was a room in a building away from Labour HQ where people were actively working to move funding from marginal seats, that the leadership were trying to win, into safe seats that were held by the Labour right. There is no other interpretation. It was a deliberate act of sabotage to prevent Labour from winning in marginals. Exactly what you keep saying Labour needed to do - and Starmer is lauded as a genius for.The "secret office" was more like people working together to try and win votes from areas which the other side are not, these votes are needed to win an election.
And how many marginals shifting away from the Tories would have prevented it? It's impossible to determine how much of an effect the sabotage had but the past five years could have been very different without it.May had the most votes and the most seats and they locked in power for 5 years, they achieved 90% of what they wanted. Paying off the DUP for votes didn't bother them, it wasn't their money.
Of course it was forced. The SNP saw a opportunity and went for it. The Lib Dems had a massive brain-fart and decided they could win the election so joined in. That left Corbyn with nowhere to go so the election was called. The Tories did not want an election.A 2019 election wasn't really forced
Of course there's record, but there's record of things from the other point of view also, from what I remember. I'm not reading it again, the first time was bad enough.Whilst some is down to interpretation, a lot is a matter of historical record.
The "secret office" was a room in a building away from Labour HQ where people were actively working to move funding from marginal seats, that the leadership were trying to win, into safe seats that were held by the Labour right. There is no other interpretation. It was a deliberate act of sabotage to prevent Labour from winning in marginals. Exactly what you keep saying Labour needed to do - and Starmer is lauded as a genius for.
And how many marginals shifting away from the Tories would have prevented it? It's impossible to determine how much of an effect the sabotage had but the past five years could have been very different without it.
Of course it was forced. The SNP saw a opportunity and went for it. The Lib Dems had a massive brain-fart and decided they could win the election so joined in. That left Corbyn with nowhere to go so the election was called. The Tories did not want an election.
What other point of view? There was either an office set up away from Labour HQ or there wasn't. There was.Of course there's record, but there's record of things from the other point of view also, from what I remember. I'm not reading it again, the first time was bad enough.
The tactics proposed by the leadership were the same ones that Starmer used. How were they wrong?"Leadership" had their tactics, policies and targets wrong
That's just semantics. Corbyn was on the left of the party. The saboteurs were on the right of the party. If you want to rebrand slightly then maybe use "left" vs "centrist"?I don't believe there is a labour "right", there's a "less left"
Labour lost six seats and gained 36 - a net increase of 30. The Tories lost 33 and gained 20 (mainly from SNP) - a net loss of 13. I'm not sure why you're presenting that as Labour losing seats?You seem to be saying that the "labour right (less left)" seats were safe, but maybe think about why they were safe? Was being more "pro left" really going to help in seats which labour were losing? They were losing those as they were losing the centre in the election.
That may have been the case but we'll never know. I'd guess, based on the state of the UK at the time, that if the same energy went into promoting Labour as went into the sabotage, we wouldn't have had the past five years of Tory catastrophe.It may even be a case that campaigning in some areas or spending more money might actually have had a negative effect, Corbyn really riled some people up, had he been less visible they might have not got annoyed by him so much etc. I appreciate this might sound odd, but it was certainly the case with a few I know, they just got conned into not liking Corbyn, Labour were not a problem for them, it was Corbyn (mostly through the press hit job).
May had already gone by 2019. Boris Johnson couldn't get an election on his terms (Brexit no deal) earlier in his leadership and then shied away from an election until it was forced on him. The Labour right got what they wanted at the expense of a Tory majority and five more years.It may have been forced on May etc, undermine her, get her out, get the Tory far right in etc, they got what they wanted out of it anyway.
The other point of view was the existing office didn't want to deal with anyone other than the Corbyn lot, which is true. Just because one office is set up, it doesn't mean they're doign the right things.What other point of view? There was either an office set up away from Labour HQ or there wasn't. There was.
The tactics proposed by the leadership were the same ones that Starmer used. How were they wrong?
I don't have a definitive list of the targets, but again, they were targeting seats they didn't hold whilst gambling on holding the one's they did - exactly as Starmer did. How was that wrong?
Policy was decided by the party at the NEC. Anyone not on board could and should have made it clear they weren't prepared to work towards the party's aims. Sabotaging the election was wrong. The policy should have been allowed to speak for itself.
As it is we're in this position where we'll never know what might have been. People from the Labour right used 2017 as a stick to beat Corbyn with, knowing that their actions undermined his chances. If they were so sure he'd fail they just had to let it play out.
If they genuinely believed they knew better and wanted to win more seats, they wouldn't have shifted funds into the safe seats of Labour-right MPs.
That's just semantics. Corbyn was on the left of the party. The saboteurs were on the right of the party. If you want to rebrand slightly then maybe use "left" vs "centrist"?
Labour lost six seats and gained 36 - a net increase of 30. The Tories lost 33 and gained 20 (mainly from SNP) - a net loss of 13. I'm not sure why you're presenting that as Labour losing seats?
That may have been the case but we'll never know. I'd guess, based on the state of the UK at the time, that if the same energy went into promoting Labour as went into the sabotage, we wouldn't have had the past five years of Tory catastrophe.
May had already gone by 2019. Boris Johnson couldn't get an election on his terms (Brexit no deal) earlier in his leadership and then shied away from an election until it was forced on him. The Labour right got what they wanted at the expense of a Tory majority and five more years.
The "Corbyn lot" were in charge. They had every right to deal with whoever they wanted, however they wanted. Between 2015 and 2017 Corbyn was open to all sides and went out of his way to be inclusive across the "broad church".The other point of view was the existing office didn't want to deal with anyone other than the Corbyn lot, which is true..
Again, a factional vote from the PLP that went against the wishes of the membership and threw the Labour party into disarray at the worst possible moment. When they put their plans forward the membership re-installed Corbyn. At that point the PLP should have accepted defeat and got behind the leader and worked for the best interests of the party. They chose to sabotage an election that they'd already decided they'd "be annihilated in" the next election - a year later and they weren't annihilated at all. Didn't come close to it. They wrecked the party for nothing. And then enabled the Tories to go on a wrecking spree of their own across the country.they had a no confidence vote on him in 2016 after the brexi vote, he lost that 172-40, the writing was on the wall then
The same tactics. And we don't know if they'd have been an election winner because they were deliberately undermined.Different tactics for different times, Cobyn isn't Starmer, tactically having him in place was not and election winner.
They were actively trying to make sure the election was lost. That wasn't the party's aim.They were working towards the parties aims, the aim was to win the election.
They were in charge of a load of MP's who didn't even think they should be in charge, that's why the no confidence vote against him was 4:1.The "Corbyn lot" were in charge. They had every right to deal with whoever they wanted, however they wanted. Between 2015 and 2017 Corbyn was open to all sides and went out of his way to be inclusive across the "broad church".
Again, a factional vote from the PLP that went against the wishes of the membership and threw the Labour party into disarray at the worst possible moment. When they put their plans forward the membership re-installed Corbyn. At that point the PLP should have accepted defeat and got behind the leader and worked for the best interests of the party. They chose to sabotage an election that they'd already decided they'd "be annihilated in" the next election - a year later and they weren't annihilated at all. Didn't come close to it. They wrecked the party for nothing. And then enabled the Tories to go on a wrecking spree of their own across the country.
The same tactics. And we don't know if they'd have been an election winner because they were deliberately undermined.
They were actively trying to make sure the election was lost. That wasn't the party's aim.