Topic: General Political discussion with kesey-style vibes & tantric breathing stuff...

[Sangria]

And people ask Geoff if he gets bored of posting the same thing all the time.

We keep waiting for Corbyn to change his tune and throw Labour behind a move for a second referendum. The members have specifically told him to do so. Yet he continues his same old tune of pretending to be listening. In that context, that quote I posted continues to be relevant in a way that little else is. Do you agree?

[west_london_red]

And yet even those of us who were critical of him were going to continue voting Labour as we'd done all our lives. Right up until he came out for Brexit.

"The British people have made their decision. We must respect that result and Article 50 has to be invoked now so that we negotiate an exit from European Union."

Jeremy Corbyn, 24th June 2016, first politician to call for article 50 to be invoked.

This post pretty much sums this thread and it’s predecessors for me.

Take a look at the post I responded to from Skeeve and my response. Skeeve made an assertion, which was incorrect and I corrected him on it. Was my response to Skeeve factually incorrect? Did I say anything that wasn’t true? No, I didn’t, I simply posted a fact, and because it wasn’t critical of Corbyn or in line with RAWK consensus it’s then assumed I must be a supporter and therefore I must want to or need to defend him.

[Mutton Geoff]

This post pretty much sums this thread and it’s predecessors for me.

Take a look at the post I responded to from Skeeve and my response. Skeeve made an assertion, which was incorrect and I corrected him on it. Was my response to Skeeve factually incorrect? Did I say anything that wasn’t true? No, I didn’t, I simply posted a fact, and because it wasn’t critical of Corbyn or in line with RAWK consensus it’s then assumed I must be a supporter and therefore I must want to or need to defend him.

And such is life.

[Sangria]

This post pretty much sums this thread and it’s predecessors for me.

Take a look at the post I responded to from Skeeve and my response. Skeeve made an assertion, which was incorrect and I corrected him on it. Was my response to Skeeve factually incorrect? Did I say anything that wasn’t true? No, I didn’t, I simply posted a fact, and because it wasn’t critical of Corbyn or in line with RAWK consensus it’s then assumed I must be a supporter and therefore I must want to or need to defend him.

You're saying that attempts to undermine him do not stem from his position on Brexit. IIRC after Corbyn had won the 2015 leadership election, he was left to do his work with no more than the usual amount of opposition within the party (I refer you to Corbyn challengng Blair less than 12 months after the latter had won a Commons majority of 160+). He was only challenged after the referendum, when he came out for Brexit. Whatever the discontent with Corbyn, the opposition to him only appeared after he started supporting Brexit. And as the Euro elections have shown, if Corbyn's fans continue to back his position on this, the Lib Dems and Greens will continue to increase their support as parties that back Remain. Remainers have had enough of being counted as part of the 80% that support Brexit parties (an argument that even Corbyn loyalists have trotted out).

[oldfordie]

The knives came out as soon as he looked like he could win the leadership contest, never mind actually becoming leader or the referendum. Just look at the post history of the people who post regularly in this topic.

I know 1 poster wrote the Labour party has just put a grenade in it's mouth and pulled the pin when Corbyn was elected leader. I don't think many of us were that clued up to appreciate just how right he was.
Corbyn was beyond bad in his first year or so as leader. he read a few questions out at PMQT like a newsreader rather than the leader of the opposition, his head looking down without any arguments to the responses given by Cameron, it was awful to watch and this is when the critism of Corbyn began. IDS resignation is a good example of just how bad he was, IDS resigned because he thought Osbournes cuts were too cruel. Corbyn never even brought it up at PMQT. every Labour MP sat there shocked. WTF.
Brexit showed just how poor a leader Corbyn is, I know he want's Brexit but am sure he didn't want the Tories to dictate every major stage for 18 months after the referendum. he was so poor Corbyn supporters were supporting arguments made by the right wing, they agreed with the Tories when they said anyone who refuses to vote to trigger art 50 is not respecting the result of the referendum.
Corbyns response showed exactly why he's not good enough to be leader.
He replied "Labour will not stand in the way of the triggering of ART 50"
A Labour leader had just given a load of right wing nutters carte blanche to do as they please when every they wanted too. were they ready to trig ART 50. did they have a plan, does anyone have a plan.
This is not hindsight, points like this were raised at the time, Labour supporters argued the Torys argument. well Labour have to vote to trigger art 50 otherwise everyone will think they are not respecting the result of the referendum. this was just the start of a few important stages of Brexit, the Tories walked all over Labour at every stage.
Corbyn is not leadership material. Miliband left Labour defenseless as well and he had to go. I don't hear anyone saying we all had the knives out for Miliband.

[Mutton Geoff]

You're saying that attempts to undermine him do not stem from his position on Brexit. IIRC after Corbyn had won the 2015 leadership election, he was left to do his work with no more than the usual amount of opposition within the party (I refer you to Corbyn challengng Blair less than 12 months after the latter had won a Commons majority of 160+). He was only challenged after the referendum, when he came out for Brexit. Whatever the discontent with Corbyn, the opposition to him only appeared after he started supporting Brexit. And as the Euro elections have shown, if Corbyn's fans continue to back his position on this, the Lib Dems and Greens will continue to increase their support as parties that back Remain. Remainers have had enough of being counted as part of the 80% that support Brexit parties (an argument that even Corbyn loyalists have trotted out).

History according to St Tony's biggest fan.

Before Corbyn was elected Campbell,  remember him your mates dodgy dossier fella,  mounted a campaign against Corbyn , within days of Corbyn getting elected many senior labour MP's refused to be in the shadow cabinet and some began negatively briefing the press, one even timed his resignation so it could be live on BBC and just before PMQ's then we got the failed chicken coup moves and Corbyn actually won two elections to be leader something no other leader i believe has ever had to do.

So lets face it the entitled right and centre right of the party acted like utter spoilt brats who spat their dummies out when their percieved right of succession was fucked up by three candidates so bad that anyone could beat them and deserve to do so. We even had the entitled Kinnock junior looking like death when he thought we had won the election.

So your assertion that all this backstabbing and self destruction within the party happened after Brexit is so far from the real truth you are living in some fantasy world.
 
By the way the yesterdays men are still trying to destroy this party,  personally i hope they do a chuka as soon as possible that would at least be the honest thing to do. Better to amputate the problem than just carry on with this slow death right now.

[west_london_red]

You're saying that attempts to undermine him do not stem from his position on Brexit. IIRC after Corbyn had won the 2015 leadership election, he was left to do his work with no more than the usual amount of opposition within the party (I refer you to Corbyn challengng Blair less than 12 months after the latter had won a Commons majority of 160+). He was only challenged after the referendum, when he came out for Brexit. Whatever the discontent with Corbyn, the opposition to him only appeared after he started supporting Brexit. And as the Euro elections have shown, if Corbyn's fans continue to back his position on this, the Lib Dems and Greens will continue to increase their support as parties that back Remain. Remainers have had enough of being counted as part of the 80% that support Brexit parties (an argument that even Corbyn loyalists have trotted out).

Yes, I am saying that attempts to undermine him started before the Referendum. If you can’t recall that, that’s unfortunate.

And yes he was only challenged after the Referendum, but also let’s not forget the no confidence motion was tabled the day after the referendum and passed a few days after that. It doesn’t prove anything, but from when the Referendum results were confirmed to when the motion was tabled, MPs really didn’t hang around either and I can’t imagine these things don’t happen with at least a little planning and forethought.

[filopastry]

Yes, I am saying that attempts to undermine him started before the Referendum. If you can’t recall that, that’s unfortunate.

And yes he was only challenged after the Referendum, but also let’s not forget the no confidence motion was tabled the day after the referendum and passed a few days after that. It doesn’t prove anything, but from when the Referendum results were confirmed to when the motion was tabled, MPs really didn’t hang around either and I can’t imagine these things don’t happen with at least a little planning and forethought.

I'm sure they didn't, but it also ignores the impact of how utterly awful Corbyn was during the referendum campaign, where many in Labour thought that he was actively obstructing it to further the cause of his beloved Lexit.

I'm sure by late in the campaign, there had already been discussions about a leadership challenge if the referendum was lost.

I'm also not going to rewrite history, I thought he would be a disaster from the beginning.

I think in retrospect his big missed opportunity was not building bridges and broadening the cabinet after the 2017 election, he could have done that from a relative position of strength and with his authority boosted by a stronger than expected showing in the GE it would have consolidated his power in a more unifying manner and strengthened the front bench immensely. Instead we have continuing factionalism.

[Skeeve]

The knives came out as soon as he looked like he could win the leadership contest, never mind actually becoming leader or the referendum. Just look at the post history of the people who post regularly in this topic.

Just as there's nothing wrong with people sticking up for him, equally true that people could doubt him from the outset as well, given how badly he has failed during this crucial period for the country it would seem that those who doubted him from the outset might have had a point.

Personally, I didn't know enough about him at that stage, going for somebody different from the previous leaders could have been a good option, but he has been utterly terrible for the country during the whole brexit farce and I now detest him due to that dereliction of duty so much that I won't vote for labour again until he is gone.

[Sangria]

Yes, I am saying that attempts to undermine him started before the Referendum. If you can’t recall that, that’s unfortunate.

And yes he was only challenged after the Referendum, but also let’s not forget the no confidence motion was tabled the day after the referendum and passed a few days after that. It doesn’t prove anything, but from when the Referendum results were confirmed to when the motion was tabled, MPs really didn’t hang around either and I can’t imagine these things don’t happen with at least a little planning and forethought.

How much forethought did it take for Corbyn to position the Labour party as a pro-Brexit party? Wasn't it around 7am (some people remember it as earlier) when he came out and said his piece? It was around an hour after the result was announced anyway. What drove him to say what he did? What drives him to continue to ignore the Labour policy on Brexit as directed by the Labour conference last year?

If Corbyn's fans continue to pretend that the move away from the Labour party has nothing to do with him and his position on Brexit, Labour voters will continue to move to the Remain parties as they did in the Euro elections. After all, on the issue that matters above all else, there is no practical difference between Labour and the Tories. And the leadership has shown no sign of change. Why vote Labour?

And BTW, what I posted was entirely relevant and highly focused. As you've shown, people will claim that Corbyn's position on Brexit has nothing to do with anything. And people will obfuscate timings to back their argument (a common example of such being the post-referendum studies). Corbyn's quote is a direct quote of what he said. The timestamp is important and refutes those false arguments. And the fact that he was the first to come out for article 50 shows that he was even more eager for Brexit than those who openly campaigned for it.

[west_london_red]

I'm sure they didn't, but it also ignores the impact of how utterly awful Corbyn was during the referendum campaign, where many in Labour thought that he was actively obstructing it to further the cause of his beloved Lexit.

I'm sure by late in the campaign, there had already been discussions about a leadership challenge if the referendum was lost.

I'm also not going to rewrite history, I thought he would be a disaster from the beginning.

I think in retrospect his big missed opportunity was not building bridges and broadening the cabinet after the 2017 election, he could have done that from a relative position of strength and with his authority boosted by a stronger than expected showing in the GE it would have consolidated his power in a more unifying manner and strengthened the front bench immensely. Instead we have continuing factionalism.

Again, I’m not defending Corbyn or that huge mistakes weren’t and are not still being made. All I did was point out that the knives were out for him from the beginning. That’s all I originally said, but unsurprisingly some took exception to that.

[Skeeve]

This post pretty much sums this thread and it’s predecessors for me.

Take a look at the post I responded to from Skeeve and my response. Skeeve made an assertion, which was incorrect and I corrected him on it. Was my response to Skeeve factually incorrect? Did I say anything that wasn’t true? No, I didn’t, I simply posted a fact, and because it wasn’t critical of Corbyn or in line with RAWK consensus it’s then assumed I must be a supporter and therefore I must want to or need to defend him.

Actually, I made an assertion that wasn't completely correct and thus neither was your 'correction' and actually, the post by Sangria doesn't actually suggest you were a supporter or not, merely somebody pointing out the main point in time where people were done with Corbyn.

[Sangria]

I'm sure they didn't, but it also ignores the impact of how utterly awful Corbyn was during the referendum campaign, where many in Labour thought that he was actively obstructing it to further the cause of his beloved Lexit.

I'm sure by late in the campaign, there had already been discussions about a leadership challenge if the referendum was lost.

I'm also not going to rewrite history, I thought he would be a disaster from the beginning.

I think in retrospect his big missed opportunity was not building bridges and broadening the cabinet after the 2017 election, he could have done that from a relative position of strength and with his authority boosted by a stronger than expected showing in the GE it would have consolidated his power in a more unifying manner and strengthened the front bench immensely. Instead we have continuing factionalism.

I thought he was bad, but I would have continued to vote Labour anyway, from force of habit and from the argument that I shouldn't split the anti-Tory vote (1992 made quite the impression on me). Brexit was the first uncrossable line for me, as Leave embodied all the aspects of the Right that I detested. It never occurred to me that Labour would do anything but support Remain and all that it represented. Then came 24th June and Corbyn in front of the mike. I'd always considered myself leftwards of Blair, and having sympathies with the ideals of Communism. But I'd never found any common cause with the far right. And here was the Labour leader, pushing the signature policy of the far right, at a time when even the right of the Tory party was shying away from the result.

[west_london_red]

Actually, I made an assertion that wasn't completely correct and thus neither was your 'correction' and actually, the post by Sangria doesn't actually suggest you were a supporter or not, merely somebody pointing out the main point in time where people were done with Corbyn.

I was being asked to explain his comments on Article 50:

Can you explain why Corbyn said what he did on the morning of the referendum? Cite evidence available at the time that he said it.

I’d say in that context I am being asked to defend Corbyn - normally that’s because it’s assumed you support the person in question.

[Skeeve]

So your assertion that all this backstabbing and self destruction within the party happened after Brexit is so far from the real truth you are living in some fantasy world.
 
By the way the yesterdays men are still trying to destroy this party,  personally i hope they do a chuka as soon as possible that would at least be the honest thing to do. Better to amputate the problem than just carry on with this slow death right now.

Are political parties not allowed to have dissent and differing opinions within their umbrella, if not then how did Corbyn even hang around long enough to become their leader given his own readiness to do likewise when he was a backbencher? 

The idea that the dissenting views are trying to destroy the party is laughable when most of them are simply trying to get the party leadership to follow the policy of the conference i.e. remain or a 2nd referendum, a position backed by about 80% of labour voters too. It is the party leadership that seems to be trying to destroy the party at this point, ignoring the wishes of their members, voters and mps, regardless of the negative impact it has on their electoral chances.

[filopastry]

Again, I’m not defending Corbyn or that huge mistakes weren’t and are not still being made. All I did was point out that the knives were out for him from the beginning. That’s all I originally said, but unsurprisingly some took exception to that.

I won't argue that he clearly had issues out of the gate with the PLP, and the large number who weren't willing to serve in his shadow cabinet, of course no doubt the PLP would claim they knew themselves that he was unfit to lead the party and would be a disaster.

The problem is if they believed that they should never have loaned him the MP nominations to "broaden the debate", there was a lot of arrogance involved there from a few MPs in assuming they could put someone on the ballot paper, to maybe curry favour with some members, knowing they weren't willing to serve under his leadership.

You don't put someone forward who you believe isn't up to the job on the arrogant belief that the members won't vote for them and it will be alright in the end.

I had my doubts with voting Labour in 2017 but I liked the local candidate who was a vocal pro-remainer, so did it anyway.

For me I think I had it when I listen to twats like Barry Gariner claim my vote was a vote for Brexit and Corbyn said nothing to contradict him, that I knew I couldn't vote for them again under current leadership.

[WhereAngelsPlay]

History according to St Tony's biggest fan.

Before Corbyn was elected Campbell,  remember him your mates dodgy dossier fella,  mounted a campaign against Corbyn , within days of Corbyn getting elected many senior labour MP's refused to be in the shadow cabinet and some began negatively briefing the press, one even timed his resignation so it could be live on BBC and just before PMQ's then we got the failed chicken coup moves and Corbyn actually won two elections to be leader something no other leader i believe has ever had to do.

So lets face it the entitled right and centre right of the party acted like utter spoilt brats who spat their dummies out when their percieved right of succession was fucked up by three candidates so bad that anyone could beat them and deserve to do so. We even had the entitled Kinnock junior looking like death when he thought we had won the election.

So your assertion that all this backstabbing and self destruction within the party happened after Brexit is so far from the real truth you are living in some fantasy world.
 
By the way the yesterdays men are still trying to destroy this party,  personally i hope they do a chuka as soon as possible that would at least be the honest thing to do. Better to amputate the problem than just carry on with this slow death right now.

For somebody who has claimed more than once that he doesn't care,you sure do like posting the type of shite that his sycophants post endlessly on twatter.

Yesterdays men 

[RF]

Aside from the antisemism and other things, what really gets me about Corbyn is his reason for wanting Brexit is that being in the EU lowers British workers wages due to the influx of foreign workers.

So in his mind he is trying to help British workers. Well how many more people are going to have to lose their jobs before the penny finally drops with him, or does he even care as long as he gets some sort of Brexit.

He's not just a rascist, he's a total and utter hypocrite . As one of those tits who actually voted Brexit i feel so guilty and want to make ammends by having the chance of another vote, but he as the leader of the opposition just wants what he wants. He's a dictator.

He hasn't been made redundant before and had to go cleaning shithouses and urinals  in pubs just to try and keep a roof over his head and food on the table for his family with a toddler and another on the way. I have. Long time ago and thankfully we turned things around.

Somehow Labour Mp's need to find a way of getting rid of Corbyn and quickly.

[Crumble]

I thought he was describing a process we need to take in order to start negotiations.
Prior to the referendum Spameron did say he'd activate A50 the next day if leave won.

Exactly. I took it the same way, he was accepting the democratic vote and holding the Prime Minister to his promise.

Lots of people on here (and in the party) would rather he had said, "hold on, it was only advisory, leaving would be mad, let's stop and consider our options", but that would not only have been undemocratic it would have been electoral suicide.

[Zeb]

Exactly. I took it the same way, he was accepting the democratic vote and holding the Prime Minister to his promise.

Lots of people on here (and in the party) would rather he had said, "hold on, it was only advisory, leaving would be mad, let's stop and consider our options", but that would not only have been undemocratic it would have been electoral suicide.

Think the argument has long been more that defining where you want to go before insisting on starting the countdown to having to arrive somewhere might have been a plan. I thought it was just political opportunism myself and which has aged rather badly as the full consequences of it all have unrolled. Everyone's memoryholed that even the Leave campaigns were giving out that there'd need to be a period of discussion on what was possible before starting Article 50.

[Skeeve]

Exactly. I took it the same way, he was accepting the democratic vote and holding the Prime Minister to his promise.

Lots of people on here (and in the party) would rather he had said, "hold on, it was only advisory, leaving would be mad, let's stop and consider our options", but that would not only have been undemocratic it would have been electoral suicide.

How would have it been undemocratic to urge for caution and a considered approach? He advocated for pushing ahead when the result was narrow enough to not really give a clear mandate to treat an advisory referendum as binding.

[Sangria]

Exactly. I took it the same way, he was accepting the democratic vote and holding the Prime Minister to his promise.

Lots of people on here (and in the party) would rather he had said, "hold on, it was only advisory, leaving would be mad, let's stop and consider our options", but that would not only have been undemocratic it would have been electoral suicide.

What's happened to the second referendum that the 2018 Labour conference directed him to push for?

[Sangria]

How would have it been undemocratic to urge for caution and a considered approach? He advocated for pushing ahead when the result was narrow enough to not really give a clear mandate to treat an advisory referendum as binding.

And this is why I keep posting the quote, the timestamp, and the fact that Corbyn was the first to push for it. He is paid to be leader of the opposition to the government. Opposing the government is not only not anti-democratic, it is fundamental to the British system of democracy. If he's not going to oppose the government, he's taking money for a democratic office that he is not fulfilling. As such it makes him no different from Frottage the non-working MEP.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

This post pretty much sums this thread and it’s predecessors for me.

Take a look at the post I responded to from Skeeve and my response. Skeeve made an assertion, which was incorrect and I corrected him on it. Was my response to Skeeve factually incorrect? Did I say anything that wasn’t true? No, I didn’t, I simply posted a fact, and because it wasn’t critical of Corbyn or in line with RAWK consensus it’s then assumed I must be a supporter and therefore I must want to or need to defend him.

There were plenty of people on here (Including me) that were very vocal about being optomistic with his vision for the Labour Party. There were many more than happy to let him prove himself as the leader and to give him time to grow into that role.

Look back at previous threads and discussions. I probably don't need to point out (As it's obvious) that many/most/nearly all people doing the discussing on here were Labour Voters and/or Labour Members. Many of these Voters/Members have been Voters/Members for decades.

You seem to be saying that Corbyn's inability to do his job well is the fault of these people? Support for a Party is a two-way street in my opinion, but I'm quite shocked at how well Corbyn has alientated and pissed off so many Labour Members/Voters in such a short time.

So is it our fault? I've been personally attacked (Verbally so far) because if I don't support Corbyn then I let the Tories in and this escalated fairly quickly into me being a Tory and then actually becoming 'Worse than a Tory.'

I never thought I'd see the day where I wouldn't vote Labour, but with Corbyn in charge I don't believe he represents me on Brexit. Not only that but his whole dismissive attitude towards Brexit is rubbing salt into the wounds. He's claiming that 'There are more important things' - but it's clear (to me anyway) that Brexit is something very important to him - it's what he's wanted all his life (You can use fact checking to see how he voted on the EU and every vote and every motion every year since..) plus as has been pointed out, he was the first one to say 'Invoke it now!' the day ater the advisory referendum.

But this has all been said before, so I'll ask again - is it our fault that we feel we can't vote for Corbyn or what he's turned the Labour Party into?

Given how laughably shite the Tories are, it's actually criminal that Labour aren't streets ahead in every poll.


What disappoints and upsets me is that the Labour Party has become all about Corbyn and not the Labour Party. If it doesn't oppose then really what is it there for? When it positions itself so that 48% of the voting public have literally no one they can vote for then what is the point?

[Mutton Geoff]

For somebody who has claimed more than once that he doesn't care,you sure do like posting the type of shite that his sycophants post endlessly on twatter.

Yesterdays men 

Grow up

[Andy @ Allerton!]

History according to St Tony's biggest fan.

Before Corbyn was elected Campbell,  remember him your mates dodgy dossier fella,  mounted a campaign against Corbyn , within days of Corbyn getting elected many senior labour MP's refused to be in the shadow cabinet and some began negatively briefing the press, one even timed his resignation so it could be live on BBC and just before PMQ's then we got the failed chicken coup moves and Corbyn actually won two elections to be leader something no other leader i believe has ever had to do.

So lets face it the entitled right and centre right of the party acted like utter spoilt brats who spat their dummies out when their percieved right of succession was fucked up by three candidates so bad that anyone could beat them and deserve to do so. We even had the entitled Kinnock junior looking like death when he thought we had won the election.

So your assertion that all this backstabbing and self destruction within the party happened after Brexit is so far from the real truth you are living in some fantasy world.
 
By the way the yesterdays men are still trying to destroy this party,  personally i hope they do a chuka as soon as possible that would at least be the honest thing to do. Better to amputate the problem than just carry on with this slow death right now.

I took it to mean among the voting public. I've voted Labour all my life, I'm not really that arsed about the internal workings of the Labour Party as long as they do their job - actually oppose the Tories and hold them to account. If it hadn't been for Brexit then I'd still be voting Labour now - and I guess most of the people in this thread would also still be voting Labour. Given the research I've personally done on Brexit and given the views I've looked at - from both sides and listening to the (gasp!) experts on economy, government, the EU, the World, Trade etc. - then it seems to me that Brexit is the opposite of what any Labour Party should be after. It will damage GDP, it will leave lunatic politicians to invoke their own versions of Human Rights, Working Rights, Environmental Protections and everything that entails. It leaves us open to massive takeovers and bumming by entities such as Russia, China, The US, AP. It leaves the NHS open to be raped by Big Pharma. It opens the way for a race to the bottom to be very much enabled and it opens the way for the current safety nets to be completely removed.

I can't square any of that to be in the interests that people like Labour are (In my opinion) supposed to look out for and protect.

I find it interesting that Corbyn and his 'fans' get a bee in their bonnet about people opposing him given that the one thing I knew about him seemed to be that all he ever did was oppose the Labour Party at every turn and every vote and every motion.

I stood up for him, I was more than happy to see the Party lean more to the left, but Brexit is the opposite of that - it's a Far Right nutjob pipe dream that will reap massive profits for the very rich and their Corporate mates and will reap terror, inequality, death and abuse for all those that sit at the bottom of the pile.

[BoRed]

Think the argument has long been more that defining where you want to go before insisting on starting the countdown to having to arrive somewhere might have been a plan. I thought it was just political opportunism myself and which has aged rather badly as the full consequences of it all have unrolled. Everyone's memoryholed that even the Leave campaigns were giving out that there'd need to be a period of discussion on what was possible before starting Article 50.

To be fair, though, it turned out that the countdown was completely meaningless, since it could be extended anyway. Triggering article 50 early didn't lead to an early Brexit, it just meant we'd get to see the government's inability to deliver it sooner rather than later (which may or may not have been Corbyn's plan to begin with ).

[redmark]

Exactly. I took it the same way, he was accepting the democratic vote and holding the Prime Minister to his promise.

Lots of people on here (and in the party) would rather he had said, "hold on, it was only advisory, leaving would be mad, let's stop and consider our options", but that would not only have been undemocratic it would have been electoral suicide.

He didn't have to say anything. At the point he did, Cameron hadn't spoken, Gove hadn't spoken, Johnson hadn't spoken, Frottage hadn't spoken. The first politician to insist on the immediate invoking of article 50 was Jeremy Corbyn.

[Mutton Geoff]

Before i start this post is simply an observation, not a put down, not meant to demean anybody but maybe a reason for some of the animosity, I am not sure about the general ages of posters but i would guess some of you joined the party or became able to vote around the time that Blair was the leader and as such his socialism is perhaps the only socialism you became comfortable with. 

For myself and others who are perhaps older and this was not the socialism i signed up for as a centre left supporter, the problem as i see it is Blair  took the party way too far to the right and now for many Corbyn has taken or tried to take the party way too far to the left.

 Leaving out the obvious problems within his leadership and himself as a person, the policies we had in place to combat the way austerity has decimated the vulnerable in society and frankly created this  'fuck you i am alright' mentality within communities was shameful and in many cases downright criminal.

Now you will say none of these good policies matters because of Brexit and to some extent i agree with you but Brexit is still best part of a year away it wont get done by the autumn no matter how much these Tory candidates talk it up however to the people on the streets and the others struggling to get through life now these policies would have been a much needed lifeline.

They say never say never but i cannot see this party ever lurching back to the position Blair took it to,  so even when Corbyn goes my belief is the next candidate elected will be from the left of the party.

A couple of final points we get thrown about in here Corbyn supporters are all sychophants but could the manic blairight supporters have be classed all  sychophants  as well at the time ?

We get well unelected people  making decisions now such as Milne but does he have anymore power in the party than Campbell used to enjoy within the party we get Corbyn's inner circle blasted in here but Blair , Mandelson and Campbell were just the same inner circle who even omitted Brown and Prescott from the decision making at times .

So all i see is the same system used just now they are all from the left and previously they were all from the right.

None of this defends Corbyn the person or AS in the party before somebody tries to claim it does . 

Corbyn has made loads of mistakes and still is but frankly senior politicians didnt put the party first when they should have done and Corbyn is guilty of the same charge

[Circa1892]

I don't disagree with the premise that Milne enjoys much the same power as Campbell/Mandleson did - the problem with that is people cried about that for years and now seem to think its fine.

The flawed premise above is also the assumption led by Jones and co that anyone who doesn't love Corbyn must be a Blairite and love Blair. I think you'd struggle to find more than one or two people on here who are devoted acolytes of Blair.

I'd personally have wanted someone from a properly progressive left wing viewpoint (note - basically throwing your country under the bus so you can play at owning a railway isn't genuinely progressive) - sadly all Labour had to offer was blandness up against tired 1970s policies and prejudices. Still baffles belief to me he's here now.

[Cpt_Reina]

I don't disagree with the premise that Milne enjoys much the same power as Campbell/Mandleson did - the problem with that is people cried about that for years and now seem to think its fine.

The flawed premise above is also the assumption led by Jones and co that anyone who doesn't love Corbyn must be a Blairite and love Blair. I think you'd struggle to find more than one or two people on here who are devoted acolytes of Blair.

I'd personally have wanted someone from a properly progressive left wing viewpoint (note - basically throwing your country under the bus so you can play at owning a railway isn't genuinely progressive) - sadly all Labour had to offer was blandness up against tired 1970s policies and prejudices. Still baffles belief to me he's here now.

It's not so much about being devoted to Blair as being devoted to his brand of politics though, isnt it.

You wont find many holding Blair aloft anymore, because he himself is tainted. But that's not the same as people largely defending his brand of politics and his iteration of the Labour party. You'll find plenty of people holding that in high esteem still and wanting to revert (regress) back to it.

[Mutton Geoff]

I don't disagree with the premise that Milne enjoys much the same power as Campbell/Mandleson did - the problem with that is people cried about that for years and now seem to think its fine.

The flawed premise above is also the assumption led by Jones and co that anyone who doesn't love Corbyn must be a Blairite and love Blair. I think you'd struggle to find more than one or two people on here who are devoted acolytes of Blair.

I'd personally have wanted someone from a properly progressive left wing viewpoint (note - basically throwing your country under the bus so you can play at owning a railway isn't genuinely progressive) - sadly all Labour had to offer was blandness up against tired 1970s policies and prejudices. Still baffles belief to me he's here now.

I agree with your first line but human nature is as such that people who were happy with the old days of Campbell weilding too much power for his status are now crying because Milne has the same status.

I also see nothing wrong with bringing back into public ownership the Railways and the Water companies and for that matter all the Utilities they have all fleeced their customers in search of massive profits for their investors, and lets face it even British Rail was never as bad as the money grabbing companies now offering high priced low customer satisfaction,  appalling low standard rail trips.

[Sangria]

It's not so much about being devoted to Blair as being devoted to his brand of politics though, isnt it.

You wont find many holding Blair aloft anymore, because he himself is tainted. But that's not the same as people largely defending his brand of politics and his iteration of the Labour party. You'll find plenty of people holding that in high esteem still and wanting to revert (regress) back to it.

The same kind of language use differentiating between evolution and devolution.

I was never an acolyte of Blair. Kinnock was the Labour leader when I first became aware of politics. 1992 was the election that shaped my political views. Blair, and the 1997 election, were what I tolerated in order to push what I wanted. I'd have been happier with Smith. I had a wide range of tolerance for what the Labour party and the leader could do and I'd continue to vote for them. Kinnock defined it, Smith continued it, Blair, Brown and Milliband fell within it. Up until Brexit, Corbyn fell within it too. I couldn't conceive of a scenario where the Labour leader would not. Corbyn and his Brexit announcement proved me wrong. I have nothing in common with the far right. Corbyn does.

"Don't push the far right." How restrictive is this of any Labour leader? Just how wrong can you be when you can't even satisfy this sole requirement?

[Mutton Geoff]

He didn't have to say anything. At the point he did, Cameron hadn't spoken, Gove hadn't spoken, Johnson hadn't spoken, Frottage hadn't spoken. The first politician to insist on the immediate invoking of article 50 was Jeremy Corbyn.

True he didnt but was he hoping or his advisors hoped that the tory party would seriously fracture trying to do the seemingly impossible and deliver a brexit that most could vote for ?
Other than that i cannot see a reason to do it as he must have known his own party were just as divided over Brexit and to be fair to Corbyn he called for it but Cameron could have ignored it and waited,  its not often a Tory leader does what the leader of the opposition tells them to do. Instead he implemented it that was his choice and he is culpable for that and his initial cowardice that led to the referendum .

[Sangria]

True he didnt but was he hoping or his advisors hoped that the tory party would seriously fracture trying to do the seemingly impossible and deliver a brexit that most could vote for ?
Other than that i cannot see a reason to do it as he must have known his own party were just as divided over Brexit and to be fair to Corbyn he called for it but Cameron could have ignored it and waited,  its not often a Tory leader does what the leader of the opposition tells them to do. Instead he implemented it that was his choice and he is culpable for that and his initial cowardice that led to the referendum .

Or that it was always his preferred direction, and he couldn't wait to box the government in to do what he wants. And it isn't a good thing by definition just because you call for something and the Tory government follows suit. Corbyn could call for tax cuts for the rich financed by stealth taxes for the poor, the Tory government would gladly implement it, and would it then count as a political win in your eyes?

[Mutton Geoff]

Or that it was always his preferred direction, and he couldn't wait to box the government in to do what he wants. And it isn't a good thing by definition just because you call for something and the Tory government follows suit. Corbyn could call for tax cuts for the rich financed by stealth taxes for the poor, the Tory government would gladly implement it, and would it then count as a political win in your eyes?

Clutching straws here with your Tax analogy as if.  I dont call Cameron implementing Article 50 a political win either just some people seem to forget that Corbyn did not implement it the tories did so in the end they and especially Cameron are the reason this country is where it is now. 

[Robinred]

It's not so much about being devoted to Blair as being devoted to his brand of politics though, isnt it.

You wont find many holding Blair aloft anymore, because he himself is tainted. But that's not the same as people largely defending his brand of politics and his iteration of the Labour party. You'll find plenty of people holding that in high esteem still and wanting to revert (regress) back to it.

By “brand of politics”, I assume you mean too much like the Tories?

I detest Blair the man, ditto Mandelson. Their own tendencies to stick their noses in the trough are well documented. I’m also critical of the way Blair’s administration saw bankers and other City institutions get away with blatant greed through light touch regulation. There are other examples of failures.

But I was a budget holder in an 11-18 school during the Thatcher, Major and Blair years. Blair’s “Education, education, education” wasn’t just a slogan - he delivered on it. And the difference in funding and support was night and day.

I know doctors and nurses who can attest to a similar improvement in the NHS. (Although I accept huge mistakes were also made awarding to private companies contracts that saw taxpayers and patients lose out).

Still, we had 13 years without a Tory in no. 10. Not something to be sniffed at in a country with a deeply conservative soul.

[Mag Hull]

What I find peculiar in the whole Blairite "debate" is the fact that some people seem to have conveniently forgotten that it was actually Kinnock who got rid of the Militant Tendancy which has subsequently crept back in - I am no apologist for Blair, however the fact that Labour were in power for 13 years meant the following was achieved - play the ball not the man! (The following was published by Corbyn's office btw):

https://labourlist.org/2017/05/andrew-gwynne-for-the-many-not-the-few-20-years-on-from-the-1997-election/

The movement towards centre left politics has actively been welcomed by the membership/supporters; a trend that was started by Milliband, a significant proportion of whose manifesto formed the backbone of that under McDonnell in 2017. It is duplicitous to suggest that the current state of the Labour party is a straight run-off about Blairite v Corbynite politics - it isn't. The issue that I intuit from the various posters is that the party, regardless of personal political hue, is being run incompetently and as a consequence of that will never be in a position to deliver on any of its policies with the Tories putting the rest of us to the sword.

Corbyn wil not be delivering the promised land anytime soon, and the article 50 announcement was the final straw for many in the party, following a generally poor performance as leader prior to this point - Traingate anyone? - I have actually got to the stage where I am now incapable of canvassing for the party in its current incarnation.

[Jiminy Cricket]

To be fair, though, it turned out that the countdown was completely meaningless, since it could be extended anyway. Triggering article 50 early didn't lead to an early Brexit, it just meant we'd get to see the government's inability to deliver it sooner rather than later (which may or may not have been Corbyn's plan to begin with ).

At the time, the expectation was that negotiation period was a set two-year timescale. It was a year later or more before it was determined by the courts that the UK could unilaterally withdraw Article 50, and it was only in March this year that an extension was allowed by the EU. None of this was known to to Corbyn three years ago. So, no, it is NOT 'fair' at all to describe the countdown as completely meaningless. It is COMPLETELY UNfair to claim that.

[Alan_X]

To be fair, though, it turned out that the countdown was completely meaningless, since it could be extended anyway. Triggering article 50 early didn't lead to an early Brexit, it just meant we'd get to see the government's inability to deliver it sooner rather than later (which may or may not have been Corbyn's plan to begin with ).

The countdown wasn't meaningless. It was very real and being forced to extend because the UK was incompetent and/or intransigent on both sides of the Commons has left the UK weakened and without allies. By going to the wire the rest of the EU now understands with crystal clarity that Brexit is a shitshow and that those pushing it are incompetent at best and outright nutters at worst.

If it was Corbyn's plan to weaken the UK on the world stage and risk the livelihoods of millions of ordinary citizens for his own political gain then he is a massive c*nt.

I doubt very much that he had any real foresight. He's a Bennite Brexiteer and always has been so he jumped in with both feet.

He's helped to fuck the country and its people and push the Tories to the right. Frottage is reborn as a political force and the chances of a no-deal Brexit are increasing as the Tories try to get back voters by chasing the UKIP/Brexit vote. The candidates for the new Tory prime Minister are scary and there's a chance that whoever it is could force through a no-deal.

Corbyn's chances of getting a General Election are slim and the parties polling in recent elections means there's a slim chance of them having a working majority if they were the largest party.

I don't think he had a plan. And if he did have a plan then it's fair to say it was a fucking useless one that has totally failed.

• UK diminished on the world stage
• The prospect of economic devastation and unemployment for ordinary people
• rise in the far right
• Tories moving to the right
• Labour not representing the majority of its members and voters over Brexit
• Millions of remain voters leaving the party or voting for Greens or Lib Dems

and so on...

What a fucking mess