Jeremy Corbyn suspended from Labour Party (now reinstated) and whip removed

[Typhoon]

Whilst I entirely agree with you in principle, to a certain extent it wasn’t all his fault.

As a politician he’s really not that much - I’ve met him - and there are far more capable politicians around in all of the main parties. He’s certainly not a leader, which he demonstrated handsomely. He was, essentially, a figurehead for Momentum and the hard left, put on a pedestal and told what to say. You can see the same in the Labour councils that have been taken over by Momentum - Haringey for example.

Obviously Corbyn has to take much of the blame - he agreed to stand, stayed on far too long, and didn’t act on this issue (and others) when it was clear he should have. [/b]However those behind him also must take some of the blame.[/b]

A sound summary, I would think - you can add to the 'blame' list those that nominated him to get over the line for being on the ballot. Many were experienced politicians, they must have known he was weak and wasn't up to the job.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I don't normally do politics but to my mind, Corbyn has been the worst leader of Labour for many years and possibly ever. Alan Johnson on election night summed it up when he harangued Jon Lansman of Momentum about the pursuit of intellectual and ideological purity by the left, rather than actually understanding what the public want and need. Go into the cafes of Consett or Bishop Auckland - they weren't bothered about fibre broadband or Palestine.

In terms of the anti-semitism, it is a damning report. It's not surprising when you see the Corbyn kitchen cabinet comprising such individuals as Pete Willsman (NEC member) and Andrew Murray (life long Communist Party member) who have form for coming out with anti-semitic tropes. Lie with dogs - get up with fleas.

I can only hope that Starmer can get Labour into some sort of order, if only to gain some semblance of competitiveness at the next election. Never did I expect to see so many Tory MPs in my native North.

 

[brad465]

Obviously Corbyn has to take much of the blame - he agreed to stand, stayed on far too long, and didn’t act on this issue (and others) when it was clear he should have. However those behind him also must take some of the blame.

Labour really need to have a rule that bars any leader who loses a no confidence vote from standing in the resultant leadership election (the Conservative party already has this)- this would have seen him gone in 2016

Also with hindsight none of the previous leaders throughout Corbyn's existence as an MP took the action to remove him on the grounds of how much he defied the party whip; a few times shouldn't be an issue, but his record was something else.

 

[RPI]

As someone who is broadly Conservative, I cant help but see this as a good thing as the credibility of the Labour Party amongst normal people was decimated by this man and his band of far left nutjob followers, Starmer is a credible opposition leader, he regularly tears a new one in Bojo but in a clinical, forensic and mostly polite way. Corbyn/McConnell/Abbott would just stand there reeling off the same old catchphrases and argue for the sake of arguing. This hopefully will be a big CTRL+ALT+DEL moment for Labour and again start appealing to the centre ground, very much like Blair did. As has been pointed out above, Blair did a lot of good.... until Iraq

 

[Bald Rick]

This hopefully will be a big CTRL+ALT+DEL moment for Labour and again start appealing to the centre ground, very much like Blair did.

Yep. It’s just 5 years too late, and in the intervening period as a result we’ve dumped ourselves out of Europe, had Government infighting to a degree rarely if ever seen before, had a Government unable to govern, and made the whole of national politics look like a circus.

 

[37424]

As someone who is broadly Conservative, I cant help but see this as a good thing as the credibility of the Labour Party amongst normal people was decimated by this man and his band of far left nutjob followers, Starmer is a credible opposition leader, he regularly tears a new one in Bojo but in a clinical, forensic and mostly polite way. Corbyn/McConnell/Abbott would just stand there reeling off the same old catchphrases and argue for the sake of arguing. This hopefully will be a big CTRL+ALT+DEL moment for Labour and again start appealing to the centre ground, very much like Blair did. As has been pointed out above, Blair did a lot of good.... until Iraq

Problem is though they still need the left to win an election, if they alienate left wingers to the extent that they don't vote or form an alternate left wing party then they wont win an election, the trick is to be able to appeal to the centre ground but the left still vote for you as there is no where else to go, same for the Tories really in the sense that the right have no where else to go, except of course they did at one point with the arrival of Farage and UKIP.

 

[telstarbox]

The problem with "appealing to the centre ground" is that it has shrunk.

The conditions in the Blair decade created a large voting bloc in the centre - GDP growth, wage growth, lots of public spending (and so more managers in universities, NHS and councils to spend the money) and a broadly pro-Europe consensus. Some of these centre voters supported the Lib Dems (most notably in 2005 and 2010).

Since then conditions have changed. Restrained public spending, reduced home ownership, increased private renting, poor wage growth and political instability are pushing voters away from the centre, to either a more radical left (Corbyn's Labour until recently) or the right (UKIP, Brexit Party and the Johnson's Conservatives). This shrinking centre is reflected in the lack of support for the Lib Dems and Change UK in the last two elections.

 

[wireforever]

Corbyn wasn't PM material although he did run May close in the previous election .Quiz question for all name a decent peacetime PM it will be a short list but saying that the US has had some poor Presidents since WW2

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Corbyn has been an unmitigated disaster for Labour--------- He's devoted the last 25 years to trying to undermine the most successful Labour government and PM in history.

The most successful Labour government and PM in history ????

If measured by general election wins, then I believe the statement is true.

Tony Blair is the longest serving Labour Prime Minister, there were some good things done by Labour and some bad things too, going to war in Iraq undid Blair's legacy.

I have never voted Labour but I am sure most Labour voters preferred Tony Blair despite all his faults to a Conservative PM. On that measure alone and because of what has been mentioned in this thread, Tony Blair is the most successful UK Labour leader and PM. Corbyn undid all that. He should retire imho - certainly not stand at the next General Election.

Corbyn wasn't PM material although he did run May close in the previous election .Quiz question for all name a decent peacetime PM it will be a short list but saying that the US has had some poor Presidents since WW2

Harold (you never had it so good) Macmillan?

I confess to bias though because unquestionably in my lifetime Margaret Thatcher was the best peacetime PM.

 

[Scotrail12]

Fabulous news!

I feel that the guy ruined the Labour Party in his tenure as a leader and as a result, is partly responsible for the mess of a government we have now. I seriously question why he stayed for so long when he was obviously not PM material and didn't provide much compelling opposition.

 

[hst43102]

I confess to bias though because unquestionably in my lifetime Margaret Thatcher was the best peacetime PM.

Does the Falklands War count? I agree with you there, Thatcher is the best PM since Churchill...

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Does the Falklands War count? I agree with you there, Thatcher is the best PM since Churchill...

I would kinda go along with that. I'd list Attlee, Thatcher and Blair as the best PMs since the war. They all made mistakes and they all did some things that caused pain. But they all had visions for how the UK could be a better country, the determination to pursue those visions even when things got difficult, and I'd say they all - when they stopped being PM - left the country in a better state than they found it. I think it's also important that they all appear to have been motivated to a large extent by their ambitions for the UK. Not like a certain current PM who seems to have gone for the job almost exclusively because he fancied himself as PM.

Back to the subject of this thread, I think Corbyn also was motivated by the desire for a better country. Trouble is, his vision was largely flawed and he lacked the ability to see that.

As an ex-Labour-member who left earlier this year, largely because of Corbyn's legacy, I was flabbergasted when I heard the news of his suspension. Really didn't think that Keir Starmer would consider something like that. I'd need to see a lot more evidence of a major shift in Labour's culture before I considered rejoining though, even though this is significant.

 

[hst43102]

I would kinda go along with that. I'd list Attlee, Thatcher and Blair as the best PMs since the war. They all made mistakes and they all did some things that caused pain. But they all had visions for how the UK could be a better country, the determination to pursue those visions even when things got difficult, and I'd say they all - when they stopped being PM - left the country in a better state than they found it. I think it's also important that they all appear to have been motivated to a large extent by their ambitions for the UK. Not like a certain current PM who seems to have gone for the job almost exclusively because he fancied himself as PM.

Very well said, I agree with everything you say there. Attlee made some truly significant changes that shaped the way Britain is today, Thatcher also changed the country for the better (hope no ex-miners are reading this!) and Blair was probably the best leader Labour has ever had.

Back to the subject of this thread, I think Corbyn also was motivated by the desire for a better country. Trouble is, his vision was largely flawed and he lacked the ability to see that.

If his desire was for Britain to be more like China and Russia, I think you're right!

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I would kinda go along with that. I'd list Attlee, Thatcher and Blair as the best PMs since the war. They all made mistakes and they all did some things that caused pain. But they all had visions for how the UK could be a better country, the determination to pursue those visions even when things got difficult, and I'd say they all - when they stopped being PM - left the country in a better state than they found it. I think it's also important that they all appear to have been motivated to a large extent by their ambitions for the UK. Not like a certain current PM who seems to have gone for the job almost exclusively because he fancied himself as PM.

Fantastic post. I totally agree with it.

 

[C J Snarzell]

Given the antics of his brother, I actually think there is something not quite right with Corbyn and not all of his dogs are barking.

Kier Starmer seems to be running a 'no-nonscene' camp - we've already seen Rebecca Long-Bailey sacked from the cabinet because of her 'dumb blonde' behaviour.

Is she is still working as an MP though?

CJ

 

[ainsworth74]

Is she is still working as an MP though?

Yes she was sacked from the Shadow Cabinet but did not have the whip withdrawn so is still a Labour MP.

 

[C J Snarzell]

Yes she was sacked from the Shadow Cabinet but did not have the whip withdrawn so is still a Labour MP.

That does beggar belief. They should have got shut of her full stop and elected a new candidate.

CJ

 

[dosxuk]

The problem with "appealing to the centre ground" is that it has shrunk.

This is a fallacy that the two party system likes to encourage, but it's complete bobbins. What's actually happened is the parties have both made lurches towards their traditional left/right wing roots and left the centre ground open. Couple this with the collapse of the Lib Dem's and you leave a huge gulf between the two groups.

The effect of this on the parties is to legitimise their lurch to the left/right and actually increase how far that way they lean using the argument that they have to counter the other party. They've lost sight (and control) of the block of swinging voters who occupy the central area, raising the stakes and even more extreme policies in order to drag more support their way (most people when given a choice between two extremes will make a choice, even if they don't believe that either option is good). The "extreme" wings of the party are therefore given bigger voices and legitimacy in these processes and they then start gaining direct control of the party's leadership - we can see this clearly in the Labour party with the Momentum group decrying anything that is to the right of Corbyn as "Tory-lite" and should be discarded as not what they should be standing for - even if those things are actually what we could see in the Blair days as centralist policies. Over in the Tory party you now have the free-market capitalists cosied up to the nationalists in some sort of weird semi-dependent relationship, even though their actual views are at complete opposites.

Where the centre ground does shrink is in widening it - more extreme views have been given legitimacy by the current parties' policies and those who (still) occupy the centre ground may find themselves drifting more towards those extremes. Our politics are a mess now because the parties have decided to abandon the middle ground, not because the middle ground abandoned them.

 

[C J Snarzell]

I'm thinking Kier Starmer should get rid of Angela Rayner too after her offensive outburst in the commons last week when she called the speaker 'Scum'.

Like Long-Bailey, Rayner is thicker than a custard slice and has a habit of speaking but not engaging her brain. Her antics in the big house were pathetic and unprofessional for someone who is a high ranking public servant.

CJ

 

[gnolife]

I'm thinking Kier Starmer should get rid of Angela Rayner too after her offensive outburst in the commons last week when she called the speaker 'Scum'.

Like Long-Bailey, Rayner is thicker than a custard slice and has a habit of speaking but not engaging her brain. Her antics in the big house were pathetic and unprofessional for someone who is a high ranking public servant.

CJ

I don't think it's in Starmer's power to sack Rayner, given that he didn't choose her in the first place - it was a vote by the entire Labour Party. I'm sure that Corbyn would have sacked Tom Watson very early on if he was able to

(Last sentence added later)

 

[Bald Rick]

This is a fallacy that the two party system likes to encourage, but it's complete bobbins. What's actually happened is the parties have both made lurches towards their traditional left/right wing roots and left the centre ground open. Couple this with the collapse of the Lib Dem's and you leave a huge gulf between the two groups.

The effect of this on the parties is to legitimise their lurch to the left/right and actually increase how far that way they lean using the argument that they have to counter the other party. They've lost sight (and control) of the block of swinging voters who occupy the central area, raising the stakes and even more extreme policies in order to drag more support their way (most people when given a choice between two extremes will make a choice, even if they don't believe that either option is good). The "extreme" wings of the party are therefore given bigger voices and legitimacy in these processes and they then start gaining direct control of the party's leadership - we can see this clearly in the Labour party with the Momentum group decrying anything that is to the right of Corbyn as "Tory-lite" and should be discarded as not what they should be standing for - even if those things are actually what we could see in the Blair days as centralist policies. Over in the Tory party you now have the free-market capitalists cosied up to the nationalists in some sort of weird semi-dependent relationship, even though their actual views are at complete opposites.

Where the centre ground does shrink is in widening it - more extreme views have been given legitimacy by the current parties' policies and those who (still) occupy the centre ground may find themselves drifting more towards those extremes. Our politics are a mess now because the parties have decided to abandon the middle ground, not because the middle ground abandoned them.

Excellent points, well made.

It’s the opposite of Hotelling law (the two ice cream sellers example).

 

[Busaholic]

So who does a Social Democrat like me vote for? In the last election I voted for my ex-MP who, though standing on a Liberal Democrat ticket, had so fallen out with then leader Swinson that she refused to endorse him, and most of his election posters bore his name and didn't mention the LDs, though in their colours. If Farage's party had stood in the seat, it could have been a LD gain based on the candidate's huge personal vote.

 

[LOL The Irony]

I would kinda go along with that. I'd list Attlee, Thatcher and Blair as the best PMs since the war. They all made mistakes and they all did some things that caused pain. But they all had visions for how the UK could be a better country, the determination to pursue those visions even when things got difficult, and I'd say they all - when they stopped being PM - left the country in a better state than they found it. I think it's also important that they all appear to have been motivated to a large extent by their ambitions for the UK. Not like a certain current PM who seems to have gone for the job almost exclusively because he fancied himself as PM.

I can't agree with BLiar being in this list of people, however I can agree with him being in a 2 meter by 1 meter room with the key thrown away, but that's another thing for another thread.

On a more on topic note, it seems like this investigation is going to drain the swamp, as apparently all of Corbyn's cronies are all under investigation. But I'll wait for conformation before commenting further.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

That does beggar belief. They should have got shut of her full stop and elected a new candidate.

CJ

They can’t get rid of her and elect a new candidate. She is an MP elected by the populace. They can remove the whip/party membership but can’t sack her.

There is the power to recall an MP (various rules in convictions and fraud etc, meaning a petition can be raised to prompt a by-election) as happened in Peterborough, and in Brecon.

If still a party member, it’s up to the local CLP to choose a candidate. The Tories put forward their old candidate in Brecon.

 

[Typhoon]

They can’t get rid of her and elect a new candidate. She is an MP elected by the populace. They can remove the whip/party membership but can’t sack her.

There is the power to recall an MP (various rules in convictions and fraud etc, meaning a petition can be raised to prompt a by-election) as happened in Peterborough, and in Brecon.

If still a party member, it’s up to the local CLP to choose a candidate. The Tories put forward their old candidate in Brecon.

That should put the expulsion argument to bed. I may just be repeating what you were implying but there is a pretty good chance she would be put forward again and be re-elected, much to the embarrassment of the new leadership. Labour should just leave her be, she is hardly a powerful voice in the Commons or on the doorstep, I don't remember any inspiring policy initiatives on her part. I suspect she was put forward by the Corbynistas because she was the 'least worst' and John McDonnell's protegee. She will struggle to be considered for 'Any Questions', 'Question Time', interviews with the likes of, LBC, Radio 4 because she is just not interesting. Radio Irwell might give her a try from time to time but that's it.

I don't think it's in Starmer's power to sack Rayner, given that he didn't choose her in the first place - it was a vote by the entire Labour Party. I'm sure that Corbyn would have sacked Tom Watson very early on if he was able to

Instead Corbyn gave him a fairly unimportant shadow job. To be honest the deputy leader of the party is not (often) a particularly important role. Stand in for the leader on PMQs from time to time, the occasional interview;and someone with her back-story is useful to have around.

There were at least two of the failed leadership candidates who would have been 'more effective deputy leaders but that is down to the system Labour's system for electing for the post.

 

[Mag_seven]

Can I request that posters refrain from using inflammatory language particularly when describing individual politicians from whatever party they come from. In particular I remind everyone of the following forum rule:

Do not post material which in any way discriminates against, or provokes, any person or group of persons.

Thank You

 

[fgwrich]

I hope the myth that Corbyn is a "nice man" will be finally blown apart by this, a nice man doesn't surround himself with wolves.

The thing I find sad about this how situation is how the Momentum / Corbynites are trying to spin this, as if Nasty Kier has kicked a poor defenceless old man out of their party. Indeed the last time I had seen it on twitter, the crowdfunded "Jeremy Corbyn" Legal Fund had already reached £336,238. Of course it's not as if a man of his wealth (over £3M at least) could afford anything like this...

 

[telstarbox]

How is the £3m calculated?

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

That should put the expulsion argument to bed. I may just be repeating what you were implying but there is a pretty good chance she would be put forward again and be re-elected, much to the embarrassment of the new leadership. Labour should just leave her be, she is hardly a powerful voice in the Commons or on the doorstep, I don't remember any inspiring policy initiatives on her part.

Quite. It was the same reasoning that saw Corbyn left alone in the early 1990s.

There were two MPs who were thrown out of the party (Terry Fields and Dave Nellist) because they refused to renounce membership of Militant who, as a consequence, couldn’t then be selected as the Labour candidate at the 1992 election.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Quite. It was the same reasoning that saw Corbyn left alone in the early 1990s.

Yeah. And to be honest I don't really see any issue with leaving him alone in the 1990s. He was clearly not fit to be party leader, but that doesn't necessarily mean he wasn't fit at the time to be a backbench MP. Much as I disagree with him on many issues, there is an argument that it's good to have at least a few MPs questioning what the Government is doing, offering alternative opinions, and being willing to vote against the Government when they feel strongly about an issue. And from everything I've heard, he was a good constituency MP. Problem is, backbench MP is really what he was good at and where he should've stayed.