Support NeoGAF

[Jezbollah]

PLP in not fond of Corbyn shocker. Remember that this is the group of people who'd already said that they were embarrassed to have nominated him even before he won.

Does that make John Mann's question less legitimate?

 

[twobear]

Does that make John Mann's question less legitimate?

I mean it's hedged in such an emotionally charged way that it makes disagreeing with it almost impossible, isn't it?

 

[Jezbollah]

I mean it's hedged in such an emotionally charged way that it makes disagreeing with it almost impossible, isn't it?

Yes, but it's also a question that could have been asked by anyone (PLP aside). If he can't answer that behind closed doors, how can he in the heat of an election battle?

 

[Maledict]

I was a Corbyn supporter, but I'm honestly on the verge of saying he should go for how bloody useless he his on foreign policy. I didn't realise he was this bloody incompetent.

He is exactly what he always said he was, and it was pointed out many times during the election his weaknesses in these areas. A lot of people chose not to listen.

 

[CCS]

He is exactly what he always said he was, and it was pointed out many times during the election his weaknesses in these areas. A lot of people chose not to listen.

I didn't expect him to change his views and I knew what they were, I just expected him to be able to express himself in a less ham-fisted and provocative way.

 

[twobear]

Yes, but it's also a question that could have been asked by anyone (PLP aside). If he can't answer that behind closed doors, how can he in the heat of an election battle?

Well, it's easy to offer a neat soundbite when your view on the issue is relatively simple, no? I have absolutely no idea what the specifics of the issue are here and I don't know if Corbyn does either. Could police use nonlethal rounds in these kinds of situations? My suspicion is that, even if they could and even if they were as effective in minimising civilian casualties, that's not what people want to hear anyway.

 

[Maledict]

I didn't expect him to change his views and I knew what they were, I just expected him to be able to express himself in a less ham-fisted and provocative way.

He's spent his entire career fighting his own party and making a point of not shading his opinions in any nuanced way. It's *really* easy to do that as a permanent back bench rebel. A lot harder when you are leader - as I'm sure he's now finding out.

 

[War Peaceman]

I find all the whining about optics really distressing. Disagree with him all you want, but articulate why his opinion is wrong. Better his honesty than the stage managed pr speak of modern politics.

 

[Maledict]

I find all the whining about optics really distressing. Disagree with him all you want, but articulate why his opinion is wrong. Better his honesty than the stage managed pr speak of modern politics.

I agree with him (see earlier post). As someone once responsible for my borough's Prevent programme, who does all the big jazzy training operations with the police on CT and preparation, I know we don't need a new shoot to kill policy - our current armed police are superb at what they do. We don't need to change the law or the rules of engagement, doing so will just leads to bad things.

The problem is, his duty is to get elected. His duty is to win his party a majority. In our system, not being in power gets you *nothing* - which means more cuts, more smashing of the working class, more inequality. It is VERY easy to stand on the sidelines, attack those in power, and talk about purity and honesty. But it doesn't actually *get* you anything.

 

[Empty]

I find all the whining about optics really distressing. Disagree with him all you want, but articulate why his opinion is wrong. Better his honesty than the stage managed pr speak of modern politics.

optics matter because a big justification for electing corbyn is that it's okay to vote someone unelectable and vastly inexperienced in traditional politics because by moving outside of the status quo he's going to change british politics and as such change what electable means

ultimately the reality a couple months in is that he makes absolutely zero impact on any issue except when he deliberately places himself miles away from popular opinion on totally irrelevant issues, often so awkwardly that he harms the real causes that he argues for.

 

[tomtom94]

Unfortunately for Corbyn there's not really a lot to criticise the Met on with regards to shooting deaths. The most obvious miscarriages of justice are just too long in the past.

You need to be able to project an image of safety, and he can't do that.

 

[twobear]

Unfortunately for Corbyn there's not really a lot to criticise the Met on with regards to shooting deaths. The most obvious miscarriages of justice are just too long in the past.

You need to be able to project an image of safety, and he can't do that.

Mark Duggan?

 

[Coriolanus]

ultimately the reality a couple months in is that he makes absolutely zero impact on any issue except when he deliberately places himself miles away from popular opinion on totally irrelevant issues, often so awkwardly that he harms the real causes that he argues for.

Anyone that expected that to happen in a couple of months was hopelessly deluded.

And again: the alternative, as far as this topic is concerned, would've also played right into conservative hands.

 

[twobear]

The part that I find kind of sad is that the PLP's entire mantra was 'we need to compromise with the Tories and find some kind of middle ground', something they manifestly refuse to do with the leader of their own party.

What's their endgame? It seems like the only plausible solution for them is to oust Corbyn and overthrow Miliband's change so that they can pick their leaders instead of having party members do it. But do they genuinely believe that will help their cause? Turning the entire party against them?

 

[Kuros]

The part that I find kind of sad is that the PLP's entire mantra was 'we need to compromise with the Tories and find some kind of middle ground', something they manifestly refuse to do with the leader of their own party.

What's their endgame? It seems like the only plausible solution for them is to oust Corbyn and overthrow Miliband's change so that they can pick their leaders instead of having party members do it. But do they genuinely believe that will help their cause? Turning the entire party against them?

They don't need to alter Millibands voting system. Just don't put a leftwinger on the ballot next time. This could all come to a head if JC changes the rules to allow the standing leader on to the ballot should he lose a confidence vote. Which apparently he can do with NEC approval. The PLP may be forced to act then if that's looking likely

 

[twobear]

They don't need to alter Millibands voting system. Just don't put a leftwinger on the ballot next time. This could all come to a head if JC changes the rules to allow the standing leader on to the ballot should he lose a confidence vote. Which apparently he can do with NEC approval. The PLP may be forced to act then if that's looking likely

Still doesn't really change the outcome; they still end up alienating the party base.

 

[Par Score]

I find all the whining about optics really distressing. Disagree with him all you want, but articulate why his opinion is wrong. Better his honesty than the stage managed pr speak of modern politics.

Exactly. Corbyn is delivering exactly what his leadership campaign promised, if you wanted flash and spin and sound-bites you should ave voted for one of the other polished empties.

ultimately the reality a couple months in is that he makes absolutely zero impact on any issue except when he deliberately places himself miles away from popular opinion on totally irrelevant issues, often so awkwardly that he harms the real causes that he argues for.

Come off it. You might not like the direction he's pushing things, but he's basically been the issue for the last few months. Tax Credits, Syria, Trident, Europe, Immigration, it's been Corbyn-tastic.

 

[f0rk]

Come off it. You might not like the direction he's pushing things, but he's basically been the issue for the last few months. Tax Credits, Syria, Trident, Europe, Immigration, it's been Corbyn-tastic.

I really don't think Labour has been at the front of any of that besides Trident, where the story is the Labour party is torn. Corbyn's only in the news because of some really dumb press mud slinging, or him saying something sort of radical but largely irrelevant to the larger stories.

The Tory back bench is playing a better opposition than the actual opposition.

 

[Moosichu]

I really don't think Labour has been at the front of any of that besides Trident, where the story is the Labour party is torn. Corbyn's only in the news because of some really dumb press mud slinging, or him saying something sort of radical but largely irrelevant to the larger stories.

The Tory back bench is playing a better opposition than the actual opposition.

That just isn't true. Despite their concerns expressed, in the end there were only two rebels on the actual vote. Labour did help make it a big issue and drag it out into the spotlight.

 

[Nicktendo86]

Shadow cabinet member called Corbyn a 'fucking disgrace'. Not sure how long this charade will go on for now.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-new...s-jeremy-corbyn-6843695#ICID=sharebar_twitter

 

[Maledict]

That article contains a quote I don't recognise. It says Corbyn has said he won't agree with a shoot to kill policy if a suicide bomber was about to detonate a device in a group of civilians. Two things:

1) did he actually say that, or did he just say he was against a shoot to kill policy and the press added in the hypothetical?

2) we don't need a shoot to kill policy for that situation, the armed police already train for it and would shoot to kill if it were necessery.

The entire shoot to kill thing seems like a complete distraction and sound bite that has no bearing on what happened in Paris, or what would happen in the UK should the same situation occur.

 

[Mindwipe]

Still doesn't really change the outcome; they still end up alienating the party base.

The PLP hates the base, that's why they're so keen to remove decision making powers from them.

 

[Moosichu]

That article contains a quote I don't recognise. It says Corbyn has said he won't agree with a shoot to kill policy if a suicide bomber was about to detonate a device in a group of civilians. Two things:

1) did he actually say that, or did he just say he was against a shoot to kill policy and the press added in the hypothetical?

2) we don't need a shoot to kill policy for that situation, the armed police already train for it and would shoot to kill if it were necessery.

The entire shoot to kill thing seems like a complete distraction and sound bite that has no bearing on what happened in Paris, or what would happen in the UK should the same situation occur.

Yeah. All Corbyn said is that extra shoot to kill laws aren't needed and the processes arr already in place for that.

 

[twobear]

The PLP hates the base, that's why they're so keen to remove decision making powers from them.

Keen? The last leader gave them more power.

 

[twobear]

Simon Wren-Lewis recently wrote an interesting blog piece about the Labour party:

What if Labour’s pessimists are right

As a result, the platform they end up adopting will be one that nearly all Labour MPs can sign up to. Just as important, it will be one that most of those who voted for Corbyn can sign up to. The big divide will not be on the merits of the policies but on whether those policies and the leadership can win a general election. So suppose the pessimists are right and they fail at the polls, and Corbyn steps down. Who is more likely to win the subsequent election for leader of the party? Someone who accepts the majority of those policies, but appears to have more charisma and less history? Or someone who has opposed both the leadership and their policies over the previous few years, and wants to shift policy dramatically to the right?

I think the answer is pretty obvious. As Hopi Sen notes, public opposition to the current Labour leadership from within will not be forgiven by party members, so it is political suicide. The media will do their level best to hype any hint of division, but for the most part they will find it hard work. That was why the leadership election result was so dramatic a moment. It showed that you cannot lead the Labour party on a platform which is Conservative-lite when the Conservative programme is well to the right.

http://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/what-if-labours-pessimists-are-right.html

 

[tomtom94]

Osborne, May and Cameron doing their best to calm things down at the moment by screaming that ISIS are going to kill us all and wouldn't it be lovely if we had more restrictions on communications. Suppose if you can get away with it...

Oh, and inflation's negative again, if anyone cares.

 

[Kuros]

Cooper doing her best on Daily Politics re Corbyn despite being dealt a 2-8 offsuit.

There almost seems to be an alternative narrative being set up by people like Benn, Cooper etc for when/if the axe falls.

 

[Nicktendo86]

Yeah. All Corbyn said is that extra shoot to kill laws aren't needed and the processes arr already in place for that.

No he didn't, here is the quote from the BBC:

Mr Corbyn was asked by BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg whether he would be happy to order police or the military to shoot to kill if there was a similar attack on Britain's streets.

Mr Corbyn said: "I'm not happy with the shoot-to-kill policy in general - I think that is quite dangerous and I think can often can be counterproductive.

"I think you have to have security that prevents people firing off weapons where you can, there are various degrees for doing things as we know.

"But the idea you end up with a war on the streets is not a good thing."

He is talking in a general sense, I don't get that he is talking about further powers there at all. Coupled with the alleged exchanges in the PLP meeting in which he refused to give a clear answer

At Monday night's Labour meeting MP John Mann, told Mr Corbyn that his niece was locked in a Paris toilet on Friday thinking she was going to be murdered.

When Mr Corbyn was asked if his earlier remarks in which he suggested shoot to kill could "often be counter-productive" meant that terrorists brandishing Kalashnikovs should not be shot, Mr Mann complained he didn't receive a clear response from the Labour leader.

I think it is fair and reasonable to say he doesn't believe that terrorists on the rampage should be shot, otherwise he would have just said so. The fact that he believes himself to be a pacifist which would surely back this up, whether that is noble is one thing, whether it makes him completely unfit to hold office is another.

 

[eXtv]

I love Jez's honest idealism. It's a breath of fresh air. But, it's going to torpedo his hopes for power.

 

[Xun]

I find it rather funny how we're supposedly liable for a cyber attack and yet they wish to get rid of encryption as it currently stands today.

My head physically hurts at such idiocy.

 

[Beefy]

Man Corbyn is getting destroyed in the press day after day.

 

[Walshicus]

Shadow cabinet member called Corbyn a 'fucking disgrace'. Not sure how long this charade will go on for now.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-new...s-jeremy-corbyn-6843695#ICID=sharebar_twitter

You mean the right wing media panic as the charade, right?

 

[Nicktendo86]

You mean the right wing media panic as the charade, right?

Are we including the Mirror and Huff Post as the right wing media now?

Edit: Speaking of the Huff Post, they are now saying that Corbyn is doing a 180 and will now say that he WOULD approve of lethal force being used in the event of a terrorist attack if he was ever PM.

Sure Jez, we believe you.

 

[Kuros]

You mean the right wing media panic as the charade, right?

Maybe my sarcasm meter is off but the Mirror? Lol.

 

[Nicktendo86]

Extraordinary scenes in the commons today with Labour MPs openly distancing themselves from Corbyn. Something has to give sooner rather than later, surely.

 

[FlammableD]

Extraordinary scenes in the commons today with Labour MPs openly distancing themselves from Corbyn. Something has to give sooner rather than later, surely.

ugh

 

[Moosichu]

John Mann just tweeted this, not the first time he has been claiming he's been misquoted by journalists about PLP meetings.

Twice Paul Waugh had quoted me from PLP meeting he wasn't at. Twice he never bothered speaking to me

 

[Kuros]

Interesting stuff for Labour. Its looking like Cameron has the numbers and will be calling a vote at some point soon re Syria.

If Hollande were to invoke Article 5 technically the government wouldn't need vote. But Cameron could really stick the knife into Corbyn (when he's stopped doing it himself) by having a vote anyway. It would make it a vote of "Do we fulfil out NATO commitments or not"

I could see the PLP wielding the axe if they weren't give a free vote if it comes to that.

 

[ruttyboy]

So despite there not being any real evidence* that airstrikes in the absence of ground support have any material effect on ISIS, we're going to waste more millions (and create future terrorists to bomb) on further futile airstrikes just because of the stupid "DO SOMETHING, ANYTHING!" attitude that follows every terrorist attack.

Still at least we'll get to see how our weaponry fares against all the US tanks and hardware that the Iraqi army 'lost'/gave to ISIS.

Oh and they're going to use the opportunity to push for the enshrinement in law of further drastic erosion of our civil rights, with effectively no route back as further discussion on the subject will be effectively illegal, brilliant.

But don't worry about your local children's centre closing down, because apparently we can magic out of thin air £2 billion for 'cybersecurity' (maybe they can upgrade the hard drives and store all our data for 2 years?!) as well as funding for another 1,900 'spies' (another £100 million?), so they'll get the wand out again for that, right?


* That I've seen anyway, everything has been to the contrary

 

[CyclopsRock]

Is it normal for journalists to have this much access to / interest in PLP meetings?

It's because the PLP are telling journalists things. Those with an axe to grind literally sit in the meetings texting journalists with what embarrassing thing is happening this time.

 

[Nicktendo86]

It's because the PLP are telling journalists things. Those with an axe to grind literally sit in the meetings texting journalists with what embarrassing thing is happening this time.

Eg, that Dianne Abbott spent the entire meeting writing out Christmas cards.

 

[RobotNinjaHornets]

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...hile-revenge-bombing-is-seen-as-a6737856.html

 

[Coriolanus]

From that independent article

David Cameron is falling into an emotive trap.

Falling into... isn't exactly the term i'd use.

 

[FlammableD]

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...hile-revenge-bombing-is-seen-as-a6737856.html

I wish that was how it's going to play, I really do.

 

[FlammableD]

Does this fit in here?

Wiltshire's entire NHS Children's Services privatised to Virgin in £64 million deal

I didn't know this kind of thing was happening

 

[Nicktendo86]

More disgusting Corbyn bashing from the right wing press here

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...k-their-leader-david-cameron?CMP=share_btn_tw

Edit: Ken Livingstone is co-chairing labour's defence review. *holds head in hands*

 

[War Peaceman]

It's because the PLP are telling journalists things. Those with an axe to grind literally sit in the meetings texting journalists with what embarrassing thing is happening this time.

Yes and it is pretty embarrassing in its own right too.

 

[twobear]

Someone here is a national disgrace but it's not Corbyn. What a sad joke the PLP has become.

 

[Nicktendo86]

The PLP are showing Corbyn exactly as much loyalty as he has shown previous Labour leaders.

 

[twobear]

Did Corbyn leak the details of private meetings to the press to undermine the party leadership?