shinra-bansho
Member
Not liking Corbyn, or his policies and ideological bent, or thinking he's unelectable aren't really mutually exclusive reasoning for wanting to oust him.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The UK votes to leave the European Union |OUT2| Mayday, Mayday, I've lost an ARM
- Thread starter Hasney
- Start date
- Status
Jezbollah
Member
Not liking Corbyn, or his policies and ideological bent, or thinking he's unelectable aren't really mutually exclusive reasoning for wanting to oust him.
They are when you want to be a political party in power.
Jezbollah
Member
Perfect.
Peter Ian Staker
Member
Third way socialism is dying everywhere anyway. Corbyn just benefitted from it.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
David Miliband would have been an awful candidate. We talk about Blairites fairly loosely, but he was an actual Blairite. It would have split the party even earlier than the current predicament. As for Chuka, don't know where his credit is coming from. He's neither charismatic nor a particularly good media performer, plus his cupboard is full of skeletons and quite probably sex toys. Doesn't bother me, but Middle England wouldn't touch it with a barge pole.
Jarvis is not really from my side of the party, but he alone is a genuine contender. Maybe also Keir Starmer, I guess. It certainly isn't Angela Eagle.
Jarvis is not really from my side of the party, but he alone is a genuine contender. Maybe also Keir Starmer, I guess. It certainly isn't Angela Eagle.
That is flawless.
shinra-bansho
Member
I don't follow. How exactly?
What about wanting to be elected government makes any of these reasons mutually exclusive somehow.
Not liking Corbyn, or his policies and ideological bent, or thinking he's unelectable aren't really mutually exclusive reasoning for wanting to oust him.
At least if they'd admitted from the beginning that his policies were the issue and not his electability, the discussion could have taken place in good faith.
The refusals to serve in the shadow cabinet not ten minutes after the leadership election were basically proof it was an ideological issue.
The logic was sound but the effect was to prove Corbyn correct in his assessment of the PLP.
I don't understand why you think the two are separable.
I'd assumed it was in lieu of a proper leadership bid, at least in the short term.
Chuka isn't running for leader. He doesn't want the press to publish whatever dirt they have on him.
For some people his policies are the issue. For some people it is about electibility, for some people it is about competence. The thing about Corbyn is there are so many reasons not to support him. It's totally absurd to treat the PLP like a monolith the way you are. Do you think people like Lisa Nandy differ with Corbyn on policy that significantly?
For some people his policies are the issue. For some people it is about electibility, for some people it is about competence. The thing about Corbyn is there are so many reasons not to support him. It's totally absurd to treat the PLP like a monolith the way you are. Do you think people like Lisa Nandy differ with Corbyn on policy that significantly?
CyclopsRock
Member
Right, but I wasn't really talking in a semantic way. May's been in Cameron's cabinet since day 1, she backed Cameron during his leadership bid, she was in a high-profile ministerial position etc. Short of Osborne being PM, she's as close to a continuity-candidate as is possible, realistically. So yeah, she's not the person that a lot of people had in mind when casting their ballots in 2015 (both in favour of and against Cam-Man), but the government we're going to get won't be all that different. If it had been Boris or Fox or Leadsom I think we'd be looking at a different situation and a GE would be a more reasonable request. But this is much more akin to a Blair -> Brown scenario, where it's sort of a case of Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss.
PJV3
Member
If you are a UKIP supporter then I think there is a good chance of that.(that was what was being compared to liking Corbyn)
Perhaps I'm getting old but Corbyn isn't that left wing to be in the truly crazy camp, however I realise he isn't going to fly at all in the UK in 2016 with a FPTP voting system.
They aren't wholly seperable. But the key from the whole campaign, for me, was Blair saying that he wouldn't vote for Corbyn even if he thought he would win a General Election. If the PLP had said this a year ago--when, given that Eagle is their candidate, it's a reasonable assumption about what they believe--then the debate would have been drawn along wholly different lines.
The PLP isn't a hivemind. They don't have some coherent POV on this and if they did it definitely wouldn't be articulated by Blair. Plenty of people on the left of the party want Corbyn to go.
David milliband in his short private sector career has done more international humanitarian organisations than corbyn the self proclaimed leftie has ever done
Peter Ian Staker
Member
It was almost always about policies. Just nobody could really say it because it would play nicely into Corbyn's narrative so they needed to hide behind excuses.
At this point Labour is unelectable Corbyn or not. They lost Scotland and most of the New Labour voters have moved back to the Tories for good.
Coriolanus
Banned
I agree. He should never have actually been nominated in the first place.
You have no idea how much the MPs regret doing that. At least two consider it the worst mistake of their lives. The PLP has the nomination rules for a reason, and they side stepped them trying to be clever and just shot themselves in the foot instead.
They should honestly just life the Tory rules at this point, but retain the £3 members or whatever.
Eagle definitely seems worse than Corbyn on the face of it. It seems he's going to hang on so now the Labour party's going to get a massive hit for nothing.
However I don't blame MPs for trying to unseat him. It was definitely needed. I blame them for failing.
David only lost because of union voting in the last round.
Bolded my view entirely.
However I don't blame MPs for trying to unseat him. It was definitely needed. I blame them for failing.
David only lost because of union voting in the last round.
Bolded my view entirely.
(Except that £1 isn't worth what it was pre-referendum).
Unsurprising - we have a PM, and the markets crave stability more than anything. Until article 50 is triggered I dont think we will see major falls - the big problem right now is the massive drop in investment as no-one wants to commit.
The pain of this will be felt in months and years, not days and weeks.
I'm not trying to say the UK is rosey and amazing economically, I'm just saying the markets have rebounded well.
Is it too much to hope that they will be left on the back benches?
Monty Mole
Member
Those Wax-works are beyond abysmal. Madame Tussaud's London?
I hope at least one MP calls him a w*nker
Edit: Actually I'll miss him, just like when the LIb Dems were removed from the coalition we now get to see how much worse it can be
You can see Osborne staying?
Doubt it, he's actually - fiscally - quite a good chancellor, and the markets like him.
Also he's balls deep into a 2 week world tour to drum up British business so imagine how unprofessional it would look for him to go into Xi Jinping's residence and be like "yo, I'll be gone in like a week but free trade yeah?"
He isn't a good chancellor though..
JonnyDBrit
Member
Investigatory Powers Bill for sure. The House of Lords are going over it right now, and having its architect and chief proponent as Prime Minister will place more pressure on them than ever.
Monty Mole
Member
Will we see the return of a 'Deputy Prime Minister'? It'll give Boris something to do.
ultratruman
Banned
I'm sick of reading all these labour MPs complaining on twitter about how awful the situation is, instead of doing everything they can to stop this madness. Eagle is 100% GOING TO LOSE, WHY ARE THEY LETTING THIS HAPPEN?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked