Jeremy Corbyn's Labour

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

All the more reason to share a platform with them. He would have been able to show that there was an alternative reason for voting remain other than the scare mongering they were putting out. From his personal perspective he would have been able to show that he was different to them.

In this case the idea of a shared platform would have been to show a united front rather than to hold a debate amongst the Remain camp.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Remind me which racist from the remain side Corbyn refused to share a platform with?

David Cameron - if you heard what he said in Parliament about Sadiq Khan - he fits the bill.

 

[londonblue]

In this case the idea of a shared platform would have been to show a united front rather than to hold a debate amongst the Remain camp.

A shared platform could have been for any reason Corduroy wanted. It would also give him a chance to improve his exposure.

 

[superblue24]

David Cameron - if you heard what he said in Parliament about Sadiq Khan - he fits the bill.

No, he doesn't.

He was pointing out concerns about Sadiq Khan having shared a stage on a number of times with Suliman Gani who is known to support (or at least be an apologist) for ISIS. That is not racist.

Even if DC didn't have his facts straight on Suliman, it still isn't racist.

It's perfectly acceptable to raise concerns about people who pose (or encourage) a threat to our life in the UK.

Excerpt from the actual "story" here:
In the Commons, Cameron said he was “concerned about Labour’s candidate as mayor of London who has appeared again and again and again” on a stage with people he described as extremists.
After being interrupted by cries of “racist” by Labour MPs, Cameron continued: “The leader of the Labour party is saying it is disgraceful. Let me tell him, Suliman Gani – the honourable member for Tooting [Sadiq Khan] has appeared on a platform with him nine times. This man supports IS [Islamic State]. I think they are shouting down this point because they don’t want to hear the truth.”

Not racist. Stop saying "racist" if you a) don't understand what it means or b) can't use it in the right context

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Not quite the same....no one was refusing to share a platform with Corbyn.

Not quite true. There are plenty of Labour politicians who are understandably very reluctant to share platforms with Corbyn.

Anyway we've just had two by-elections. One in a Remain area and one in a Brexit area. Labour picked up under 5,000 votes between the two of them, finishing third and losing their deposit in one whilst dropping from second to fourth in the other.

A similar story happened back in October in Witney where the Labour vote collapsed and Labour went from second to third.

What's clear is that the opposition is now the Lib Dems who can beat the Tories in Remain areas whilst UKIP can't make in-roads into the Tory vote in Leave areas.

When a leader is being out performed by Tim Farron it's time for them to go.

 

[Napster]

The press want to sell print and good stories about JC won't do that.
The only people who believe JC is any good are the blind few hundred thousand socialist worker readers and they won't be buying a Sun , Mirror or Mail so why would those rags waste print?
Now a bad story would get read...................
Such is the state of British "journalism" and the lack of broad appeal of the current unelectable, untrusted Labour party.:sad:

Newpaper numbers are falling - not as much influence as before.

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/abc-f...s-june-brexit-vote-boost-in-print-and-online/

people are influenced more now by social media/fake news/peers than mainstream media.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

No, he doesn't.

He was pointing out concerns about Sadiq Khan having shared a stage on a number of times with Suliman Gani who is known to support (or at least be an apologist) for ISIS. That is not racist.

Even if DC didn't have his facts straight on Suliman, it still isn't racist.

It's perfectly acceptable to raise concerns about people who pose (or encourage) a threat to our life in the UK.

Excerpt from the actual "story" here:
In the Commons, Cameron said he was “concerned about Labour’s candidate as mayor of London who has appeared again and again and again” on a stage with people he described as extremists.
After being interrupted by cries of “racist” by Labour MPs, Cameron continued: “The leader of the Labour party is saying it is disgraceful. Let me tell him, Suliman Gani – the honourable member for Tooting [Sadiq Khan] has appeared on a platform with him nine times. This man supports IS [Islamic State]. I think they are shouting down this point because they don’t want to hear the truth.”

Not racist. Stop saying "racist" if you a) don't understand what it means or b) can't use it in the right context

Yes he does. At that time - Goldsmith - racist, Fallon - racist, Cameron - racist, Suliman - Tory supporter who had been out canvassing for the party, yet these 3 associated him with Sadiq.

Fallon was forced (after the Mayoral election) to withdraw his accusations about Suliman and many inside the Conservative Party were not pleased about these 3 using racism to try to win the Mayoral election.


So yes I do understand the concepts being discussed.

 

[Napster]

Latest Corbyn news - http://order-order.com/2016/12/09/c...t-with-press-tv-extremists-and-israel-haters/

 

[londonblue]

Latest Momentum new:

BBC

A member of Mr Corbyn's inner circle told the BBC's Daily Politics privately that Momentum was now "starting to look like a parallel party" to Labour.

One member one vote was good enough to dilute power and get Corduroy elected, but it seems they don't like the same level of democracy when it might dilute their power.

Maybe they should do what I've said all along: set up their own party and leave Labour alone. Corduroy could be their leader.

 

[mrsblue]

Yes he does. At that time - Goldsmith - racist, Fallon - racist, Cameron - racist, Suliman - Tory supporter who had been out canvassing for the party, yet these 3 associated him with Sadiq.

Fallon was forced (after the Mayoral election) to withdraw his accusations about Suliman and many inside the Conservative Party were not pleased about these 3 using racism to try to win the Mayoral election.


So yes I do understand the concepts being discussed.

***,

Labour when in power virtually muzzled every person in this country,Look when Brown was caught calling that old lady several choice names,what did she exactly say to warrant such abuse,nothing.

Labour voters have left the party in their droves.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

***,

Labour when in power virtually muzzled every person in this country,Look when Brown was caught calling that old lady several choice names,what did she exactly say to warrant such abuse,nothing.

Labour voters have left the party in their droves.

I'm no fan of Labour, but virtual muzzling sounds more like one of those authoritarian Tory plans to control the internet.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Remind me which racist from the remain side Corbyn refused to share a platform with?

Sorry. I read that the other way round.

He's right you know (on the leave side though).:winking:

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Remind me which racist from the remain side Corbyn refused to share a platform with?

***,

Labour when in power virtually muzzled every person in this country,Look when Brown was caught calling that old lady several choice names,what did she exactly say to warrant such abuse,nothing.

Labour voters have left the party in their droves.

And there was me thinking the membership had gone up since JC was (twice) elected.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

And there was me thinking the membership had gone up since JC was (twice) elected.

Membership goes up and votes go down.

Of course elections are decided by votes and not membership but to the ideologically pure that's no doubt an inconsequential detail.

 

[mrsblue]

I'm no fan of Labour, but virtual muzzling sounds more like one of those authoritarian Tory plans to control the internet.

Very true indeed,

Whoever is in power they want/demand utter obedience from the masses even if the masses do not agree,look at Brexit being watered down,majority vote means nothing.

Crazy world.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Very true indeed,

Whoever is in power they want/demand utter obedience from the masses even if the masses do not agree,look at Brexit being watered down,majority vote means nothing.

Crazy world.

That's not true of the Lib Dems. Despite having Liberal in their name they are relatively liberal. You should probably therefore vote for them.

As for Brexit, no plan was voted for (despite many Remainers such as myself suggesting there needed to be a Leave plan none was put forward). There is therefore no mandate for what Brexit actually looks like. Many, encouraged by Boris to believe they could have cake and eat cake, likely voted for leaving the EU but remaining part of the Single Market (such as Norway). Given the wafer thin majority of a 51.8% vote there is therefore almost certainly a majority who therefore don't wish to leave the Single Market.

 

[mrsblue]

That's not true of the Lib Dems. Despite having Liberal in their name they are relatively liberal. You should probably therefore vote for them.

As for Brexit, no plan was voted for (despite many Remainers such as myself suggesting there needed to be a Leave plan none was put forward). There is therefore no mandate for what Brexit actually looks like. Many, encouraged by Boris to believe they could have cake and eat cake, likely voted for leaving the EU but remaining part of the Single Market (such as Norway). Given the wafer thin majority of a 51.8% vote there is therefore almost certainly a majority who therefore don't wish to leave the Single Market.

Their leader isn't exactly liberal because he thinks same sex marriage is wrong.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Their leader isn't exactly liberal because he thinks same sex marriage is wrong.

I didn't realise this was an area you were so passionate about.

That he does not personally believe in same sex marriage yet still supports it being the individual's right to decide and none of the government's business, seems pretty liberal to me. Here's his voting record on the subject

 

[mrsblue]

Peter Tatchell outplayed Jezza whilst the ghastly Chakrabati pulls Jezza's strings.Does she run the party,I wonder.

whatamess.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Not quite true. There are plenty of Labour politicians who are understandably very reluctant to share platforms with Corbyn.

Anyway we've just had two by-elections. One in a Remain area and one in a Brexit area. Labour picked up under 5,000 votes between the two of them, finishing third and losing their deposit in one whilst dropping from second to fourth in the other.

A similar story happened back in October in Witney where the Labour vote collapsed and Labour went from second to third.

What's clear is that the opposition is now the Lib Dems who can beat the Tories in Remain areas whilst UKIP can't make in-roads into the Tory vote in Leave areas.

When a leader is being out performed by Tim Farron it's time for them to go.

The idea that the Liberals will ever again be HM's Opposition is just laughable.

By-elections, (while important), can never be a true test of a party's popularity.

It's clear that the Labour party membership is fully behind JC, while the PLP is not.

What is not clear, (yet), is the attitude of the country as a whole.We'll find that out in 2020 ( or quite possibly before).