angrysoba
Philosophile
Looks like McFadden is the main one to go. This is hardly the Night of the Long Knives.
Corbyn did win, what's next?
- Thread starter Darat
- Start date
Looks like McFadden is the main one to go. This is hardly the Night of the Long Knives.
ohms
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2005
- Messages
- 1,709
With Jonathan Reynolds, Stephen Doughty and Kevan Jones have also all quit. Bit of a shambles all around tbh...
angrysoba
Philosophile
That's their decision.
NWO Sentryman
Proud NWO Gatekeeper
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2009
- Messages
- 6,994
With the Tories beginning to schism over Europe, could Corbyn use that to rally his party around him?
ohms
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2005
- Messages
- 1,709
I never claimed otherwise. Their resignations, one of them live on TV, do continue to undermine Corbyns' authority as do the criticisms of Corbyn and the Labour Party's direction coming from the back benches.
Cameron was talking of having the EU negotiations wrapped up next month so we will see. It wouldn't be the first time the Tories have torn themselves apart over Europe.
Last edited:
Schism? Your lenses are a different colour to mine. I see no schism..............not in the Conservative party, anyway. That they have differing views on Europe isn't a shock, but it is all looking quite civilised to me. If you want schisms, just have a little look over there to the left. No. Not there......a little further left.
Three MPs from the right wing of the party who aren't happy about the direction that the party membership is leading the party are spitting their collective dummies over this. Clearly they think that the policy and actions of The Labour Party should be based on the views of a minority of the parliamentary Labour Party rather than the majority of the members.
Jeremy Corbyn tried to be inclusive by having them in his shadow cabinet, they have shown themselves to be no better than spoiled children by throwing a tantrum rather than trying to work as part of a team.
Essentially the boot is on the other foot. For years Jeremy Corbyn and his ilk were part of the "awkward squad" who refused to tow the party line on all matters. They accepted that in the Blairite (and subsequent iterations) of the Labour Party, the price of their free speech was that they would remain on the back benches. The new "awkward squad" OTOH seem to feel that they can continue express views contrary to Labour Party policy but retain their positions of authority.
Except they just quit.
And views "contrary to policy".........there is no Labour policy on Trident renewal. There is an ongoing review to decide policy. There was no Labour policy on Syria: there was a free vote. Are you making the mistake of conflating Corbyn's opinion with Labour Party policy?
How well has all this been handled? I mean, briefing that there was going to be a "revenge re-shuffle", then briefing that there was going to be no re-shuffle at all, then briefing that Hilary Benn was going to be sacked, then announcing that he had agreed to be muzzled, then him saying that he agreed no such thing at all........ How would you say that this reflects on Corbyn's strength as a leader, and on the cohesiveness of the party? How are Labour looking to the broader electorate right now? Things going nicely with the new dynamic refreshing leader in charge of a united and motivated party?
Allegedly over their fellow travelers being removed from the Shadow Cabinet. Their clear expectation is that they should have been able to continue to voice opposition to Labour Party policy from the front benches
You're right, I was wrong.
Two of the shadow ministers resigned over the firing of Pat McFadden. Pat McFadden was apparently fired because he suggested made comments like:
Which was taken as a direct attack on Jeremy Corbyn. Should any party leader have to put up with such direct and open attacks like this ?
Who knows who briefed about what ?
The Labour Party is going through a very difficult time at the moment. It's almost the mirror of the situation in the 1980s where there was a fringe left wing which believed that it should still define policy whereas the parliamentary party (and to a lesser extent the membership) wanted a more centreist position. Today there is a right wing Blairite rump who think that they should still define Labour Party policy and rather than trying to influence the party members (probably a tough ask when the membership tends to be far more left wing than the parliamentary party) they resort to politicing.
You're correct that it looks bad at the moment but then again the alternative headlines "Weak Corbyn caves to Labour right wing" would have been equally damaging.
In terms of gagging Hilary Benn, there is plenty of precedent of politicians saying "The policy of the xxxxxxx party is xxxxxxxxx" even though it may conflict with their own personal views. The alternative would be to only have ministers or shadow ministers who agreed with every aspect of party policy - hardly realistic in the real world.
It was either a direct attack, or it "was taken". Being that neither Corbyn nor his policies or even pronouncements were mentioned in that statement by McFaddenn, and that Corbyn's ideas aren't Labour policy anyway, in what way was McFaddenn's statement a "direct attack"?
The most predictable bad moment ever, and, I predict, there will be many more, and some worse. As I said way-back-when, Corbyn makes Labour unelectable, and that is most unfortunate.
Last edited:
That's what I like so much about this forum, and about you (and many others). You won't find this type of statement on many other fora.
Laura Cuensberg (sp?), the BBC chief political editor. She said this on R4 yesterday.
Last edited:
Ever since Jeremy Corbyn's comments about the killing of Osama bin Laden were deliberately taken out of context, there has been a continual effort to portray him as being a terrorist sympathiser.
The comments during the commons debate on Syria were the latest in a long line of sniping comments by McFadden which sought to portray his own party leader as a terrorist sympathiser.
One of the many things that winds me up is the way that any opposition to military action against terrorists (no matter whether or not that is likely to be effective) or any attempt to introduce nuance into the Islamic terrorist debate is portrayed as being a terrorist sympathiser.
I too think that Jeremy Corbyn is unelectable but then again I cannot see that any Labour Party would be electable.
Labour keeping the policy and type of leader it had at the last election is demonstrably unelectable. If Labour lurched to the right it's be the Conservative Party in all but name - why vote for a poor substitute ?
angrysoba
Philosophile
Are you passing off media speculation as an official line or are you saying these "briefing" statements were made through official channels? The distinction is important.
I gave my source in #911
angrysoba
Philosophile
It doesn't answer my question though, does it? Is she passing on gossip or is she passing on official statements?
Is this a case of another political insider with their knickers in a twist because they don't like Corbyn?
Do you understand the system of briefing on lobby terms? And this is the BBC, so their coverage is unbiased.
angrysoba
Philosophile
Last edited:
angrysoba
Philosophile
No, I was being sarcastic. Should I assume you were being entirely serious when you asserted that the BBC's coverage is necessarily unbiased?