MPs quitting Labour & Conservative parties discussion thread

Memnoch wrote: »

Nope. A concerted propaganda campaign in order to maintain the corrupt status quo of greed, exploitation and inequality.

Unfortunately, it seems to have been effective.

Indeed. However, if you think Corbyn is the answer then I'm afraid you're asking the wrong question.

Leroy42

Memnoch wrote: »

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Corbyn.

Nope. A concerted propaganda campaign in order to maintain the corrupt status quo of greed, exploitation and inequality.

Unfortunately, it seems to have been effective.

Yes, it's all the media fault.

But whoever's fault it is, surely Labour should have a leader that maximises their changes rather than limits them? Which is more important, Labour winning or Corbyn winning because it seems pretty clear that it will be extremely difficult to have both.

No matter where Corbyn stands politically, even on Brexit, he is failing completely to hold this government to account.

Name one minister than he has been responsible for resigning? Name one policy change?

Polls matter in politics, if Labour were surging ahead you can bet the Tories would be changing tact. But they can see that Corbyn offers no real opposition and thus they are free to fight amongst themselves and put party first.

Benn, Cooper have been far more effective at holding the government to account.

Corbyn clearly had a movement under him, yet has been unable or unwilling to use that to push for reform. Think back to Blair. Whatever about his politics, he completely destroyed the Tories. The GE result was simply the natural outcome of the previous few years when he tore the Tories to bits in the HoC, in speeches etc.

By the end it was almost a mercy killing. The Tories are back there now. They only recently had a vote of no confidence in TM. What did Corbyn do? Muddled around for a while before calling a NC vote in the government with no apparent plan of how to win it.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Indeed. However, if you think Corbyn is the answer then I'm afraid you're asking the wrong question.

Why? Because tbh there ain't a lot of actual substance to the criticism he gets. Even you admit there's been a campaign against him. Even here he's been called a trot. The farthest left idea I've ever heard Corbyn talk about is to nationalise the railways. Germany and France should be informed of this Trotskyism immediately. FFS even Ireland has nationalised part of its comms network.

You are right though. this is the start of a response against global capitalism. Sands are indeed shifting, but you won't find any answers to the future with the party of the same olf crap that Blair sold.

Memnoch

Leroy42 wrote: »

Yes, it's all the media fault.

But whoever's fault it is, surely Labour should have a leader that maximises their changes rather than limits them? Which is more important, Labour winning or Corbyn winning because it seems pretty clear that it will be extremely difficult to have both.

No matter where Corbyn stands politically, even on Brexit, he is failing completely to hold this government to account.

Name one minister than he has been responsible for resigning? Name one policy change?

Polls matter in politics, if Labour were surging ahead you can bet the Tories would be changing tact. But they can see that Corbyn offers no real opposition and thus they are free to fight amongst themselves and put party first.

Benn, Cooper have been far more effective at holding the government to account.

Corbyn clearly had a movement under him, yet has been unable or unwilling to use that to push for reform. Think back to Blair. Whatever about his politics, he completely destroyed the Tories. The GE result was simply the natural outcome of the previous few years when he tore the Tories to bits in the HoC, in speeches etc.

By the end it was almost a mercy killing. The Tories are back there now. They only recently had a vote of no confidence in TM. What did Corbyn do? Muddled around for a while before calling a NC vote in the government with no apparent plan of how to win it.

If the labour party is lead by someone like Tony Blair who will only continue the status quo, if that is the only kind of Labour party that will be ALLOWED to win, then British democracy is dead and a labour win is pointless.

It seems clear that a principled leader that is actually willing to take on the establishment and cannot be bought will never be allowed to ascend to power in the current system.

If you want to blame anyone for the Tories not being held account then you should blame those genuinely responsible, i.e. those who have been doing their best to sabotage and undermine Corbyn in order to prevent him from getting into power. To them, keeping Corbyn out, is more important than stopping brexit.

Havockk wrote: »

Why? Because tbh there ain't a lot of actual substance to the criticism he gets. Even you admit there's been a campaign against him. Even here he's been called a trot. The farthest left idea I've ever heard Corbyn talk about is to nationalise the railways. Germany and France should be informed of this Trotskyism immediately. FFS even Ireland has nationalised part of its comms network.

You are right though. this is the start of a response against global capitalism. Sands are indeed shifting, but you won't find any answers to the future with the party of the same olf crap that Blair sold.

I never admitted there was a campaign against him, you must be confusing me with someone else. I find it richly ironic that Hatton rejoined Labour today of all days. The symbolism won't be lost on Labour backbenchers hoping for a change of course. More resignations to come in the next week.

Memnoch

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Indeed. However, if you think Corbyn is the answer then I'm afraid you're asking the wrong question.

Corbyn is a name. Or a symbol.

He's the first genuinely principled politician to become a leader of a major UK political party in decades. Anyone else similarly principled who might, for example, close tax loopholes or actually tackle inequality or take on the status quo would have been similarly smeared and undermined.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I never admitted there was a campaign against him, you must be confusing me with someone else. I find it richly ironic that Hatton rejoined Labour today of all days. The symbolism won't be lost on Labour backbenchers hoping for a change of course. More resignations to come in the next week.

I don't like Farage or his ideas but it would be absolutely moronic if I complained he was a member of UKIP.

That argument is bizarre. Is Hatton free to seek election or not?

Memnoch wrote: »

Corbyn is a name. Or a symbol.

He's the first genuinely principled politician to become a leader of a major UK political party in decades. Anyone else similarly principled who might, for example, close tax loopholes or actually tackle inequality or take on the status quo would have been similarly smeared and undermined.

I wouldn't question his integrity. His problem is that he is out of his depth and his ideology doesn't appeal to a majority. So Labour suffers.

Havockk wrote: »

I don't like Farage or his ideas but it would be absolutely moronic if I complained he was a member of UKIP.

That argument is bizarre. Is Hatton free to seek election or not?

No idea.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I wouldn't question his integrity. His problem is that he is out of his depth and his ideology doesn't appeal to a majority. So Labour suffers.

Honestly, the centre should have realised long before now that brexit was a reality & was going to happen, and they were too slow in getting the narrative spun. You allowed the likes of UKIP to get the retaliation in first about how that would be an affront to democracy. A longer-term fix was always required, be that a period in the CU before full membership down the line, instead the centre just imploded and acted like spoilt children.

Brexit needed someone like Corbyn in charge, exactly because it is going to be a shytshow, and the people of the UK worst affected will need the most help, and he was their man. Now the Tories really could do some damage if they get their claws in and are you still going to blame Corbyn or look in a mirror?

Havockk wrote: »

Why? Because tbh there ain't a lot of actual substance to the criticism he gets. Even you admit there's been a campaign against him. Even here he's been called a trot. The farthest left idea I've ever heard Corbyn talk about is to nationalise the railways. Germany and France should be informed of this Trotskyism immediately. FFS even Ireland has nationalised part of its comms network.

You are right though. this is the start of a response against global capitalism. Sands are indeed shifting, but you won't find any answers to the future with the party of the same olf crap that Blair sold.

A majority of conservatives want the railways nationalised. I also think that Corbyn wants to spend a few bob on reindustrialising the north.

Might be a fools errand but hardly Stalin.

Funny enough he’s hated by people who like the new green deal Democratic plan in the US which is far far more radical, far far more interventionist, far far more uncosted and unlikely to get off the drawing board.

(But worth a shot.)

the dislike from centrists have for him is all Brexit.

Memnoch

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I wouldn't question his integrity. His problem is that he is out of his depth and his ideology doesn't appeal to a majority. So Labour suffers.

Respectfully, I couldn't disagree more. His integrity is exactly the issue. It is because of this that he has had the entire British media and political establishment gunning for him from day one.

It's very easy to say that someone is out of their depth and not effective when they have not been given a chance because of a rigged and corrupt system. I think Corbyn has shown tremendous fortitude, political instincts and ability to achieve what he has despite overwhelming odds.

It is akin to poisoning the well and then calling the farmer incompetent when his crops die from watering them.

Sadly, Corbyn's greatest achievement might be exposing just how broken British democracy truly is and the true agendas behind suppose left-wing organizations like the Guardian and the independent as well as the corrupt internal machinations of British political parties.

AllForIt

Havockk wrote: »

Brexit needed someone like Corbyn in charge, exactly because it is going to be a shytshow, and the people of the UK worst affected will need the most help, and he was their man. Now the Tories really could do some damage if they get their claws in and are you still going to blame Corbyn or look in a mirror?

The ppl worst affected by Brexit are the ppl who voted for it.

I can't see how a socialist government would be much help to the working classes and below in an isolated economy.

robinph

I wouldn't see anything about company registration as being sinister. Just a handy and quick way to register a seperate entity to handle things for them as they figure out what they become in the future. Saw mentioned on twitter that it makes no difference to the declaration of donations either as they would all still have to be reported in the event that they do become a party at a later date, and one of them was talking about donations and funding on the radio last night as if all that kind of reporting already applied as far as they were concerned... But they've had no donations that big so far.

prawnsambo

Havockk wrote: »

Brexit needed someone like Corbyn in charge, exactly because it is going to be a shytshow, and the people of the UK worst affected will need the most help, and he was their man. Now the Tories really could do some damage if they get their claws in and are you still going to blame Corbyn or look in a mirror?

Well then his job was and is to do everything to stop it. And that should have started with the referendum campaign. But telling people that he was "seven out of ten in favour of the EU" doesn't really cut it in that regard. He doesn't have a majority in the HoC, but neither do the Tories. And he seems to be happy to let the UKIP wing of the Labour party vote with them. And then of course there was the debacle over the immigration bill. Bumbling ineptitude seems to be about his level.

Akrasia

Corbyn could have pretended to have integrity, but when push came to shove, he has betrayed his own mandate from his psrty conference by refusing to pursue a 2nd referendum. His integrity falls apart when he uses platitudes like 'all options are on the table' when he has no intention of doing anything other than push for a general election, even at increasing risk of a crash out brexit

Leroy42

[/QUOTE]Originally Posted by Havockk View Post
Brexit needed someone like Corbyn in charge, exactly because it is going to be a shytshow, and the people of the UK worst affected will need the most help, and he was their man. Now the Tories really could do some damage if they get their claws in and are you still going to blame Corbyn or look in a mirror?[/QUOTE]

So what is Labour position in Brexit? What would they have done differently to the TM and the Tories?

Negotiate better seems to be the sum of his plan. He has no more a grasp on it that the Tories.

So on what basis are you saying that Brexit needed someone like Corbyn. What in particular would he have brought to the table. He was almost non existent during the campaign itself, so much so that many people still aren't too sure what his actual position is.

The reason that TM has got away with her constant changing position and now letting the clock run down is that she faces no opposition from Corbyn, he is not presenting any alternative. Even his letter last week he 'forgot' to include the threat of a 2nd ref. So in effect he sent a letter saying something but without any call for TM to actually change course.

It is very clear that he doesn't really care about Brexit, be that whether it happens at all or how it is carried out. The stated 1st aim of Labour is a GE, and everything is aimed at that. But that begs the question why a party that is singularly focused on a GE is so unable to develop a strategy to put them ahead in the polls.

markodaly

I have to concur with the view that those who are blindly following Corbyn and his style of leadership are acting in the same manner of Trump.

Corbyn's Labour is simply not going to get electoral success in a GE. His popularity is worse than that of May, and that is saying something. People who want some kind of ideologically pure Trotskyist left-wing party will never be in power.

People go to the centre because that is where the votes are, that is the route to power. Populism both left and right should be resisted.
Ironically the Corbynistas and the likes of Jacob Ress Mogg have more in common then they think.

prawnsambo wrote: »

Well then his job was and is to do everything to stop it. And that should have started with the referendum campaign. But telling people that he was "seven out of ten in favour of the EU" doesn't really cut it in that regard.

Why is that “his job”. The labour movement has always been divided on Europe.

markodaly wrote: »

I have to concur with the view that those who are blindly following Corbyn and his style of leadership are acting in the same manner of Trump.

Corbyn's Labour is simply not going to get electoral success in a GE. His popularity is worse than that of May, and that is saying something. People who want some kind of ideologically pure Trotskyist left-wing party will never be in power.

People go to the centre because that is where the votes are, that is the route to power. Populism both left and right should be resisted.
Ironically the Corbynistas and the likes of Jacob Ress Mogg have more in common then they think.

^^Here you go centrists. Here is your new allies... the far-right.

markodaly wrote: »

I have to concur with the view that those who are blindly following Corbyn and his style of leadership are acting in the same manner of Trump.

Corbyn's Labour is simply not going to get electoral success in a GE. His popularity is worse than that of May, and that is saying something. People who want some kind of ideologically pure Trotskyist left-wing party will never be in power.

People go to the centre because that is where the votes are, that is the route to power. Populism both left and right should be resisted.
Ironically the Corbynistas and the likes of Jacob Ress Mogg have more in common then they think.

The centre is dead, mark. Too many wars and too few industries. Also housing.

Young people are moving left. The old are moving right.

Havockk wrote: »

^^Here you go centrists. Here is your new allies... the far-right.

Well I mean Blair is shilling for Saudi now and banging the war drums on Iran. That’s your centrism.

Dyr

So what exactly is the critics problem with red Jezza:

That his political values won't get Labour elected to government ( In a world where the ERG is running the UK and are exiting the EU with no deal I wouldn't be too sure, possibilities abound)

or

That he's cool with Antisemitism ( I highly doubt it)

or

He's a crap leader ( I'd agree)

Because I suspect those reasons are just covers for "I don't like his politics and don't want him to PM of the UK" Which is fair enough but at least be honest

prawnsambo

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Why is that “his job”. The labour movement has always been divided on Europe.

Because if you read the post I replied to, you'd have seen why.

Brexit needed someone like Corbyn in charge, exactly because it is going to be a shytshow, and the people of the UK worst affected will need the most help, and he was their man.

markodaly

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

The centre is dead, mark. Too many wars and too few industries. Also housing.

Young people are moving left. The old are moving right.

Moving?

The young have always been to the left and the old have always been to the right.
People go on about the electoral future is some sort of populist left movement. Where has this worked anywhere in the world in the past 10 years?

Populism is a false dawn as young people will grow up and realise that there are no easy solutions to rule and govern.

markodaly

Havockk wrote: »

^^Here you go centrists. Here is your new allies... the far-right.

What? That is not what I said at all.

prawnsambo

Bambi wrote: »

So what exactly is the critics problem with red Jezza:

That his political values won't get Labour elected to government ( In a world where the ERG is running the UK and are exiting the EU with no deal I wouldn't be too sure, possibilities abound)

or

That he's cool with Antisemitism ( I highly doubt it)

or

He's a crap leader ( I'd agree)

Because I suspect those reasons are just covers for "I don't like his politics and don't want him to PM of the UK" Which is fair enough but at least be honest

He's not pragmatic enough to lead a 'broad church' party. And that's not my definition of Labour, that's theirs.

Dyr

prawnsambo wrote: »

He's not pragmatic enough to lead a 'broad church' party. And that's not my definition of Labour, that's theirs.

I'd agree that he's not pragmatic but the broad church thing is just wrong. It's the Blairite faction that have made it clear that they only tolerate a broad church so long as they're the only ones who can get up and say Mass.