Frank field

[bpoolrover]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-45359009   Sad really he was 1 of the few MPs I like

[Bentley Bullet]

I remember him from years ago after someone taught him to yodel.

[Muttley]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-45359009   Sad day 1 if the few mps I like

He's not died you know and he's still an MP - at least until the next election when he will be deselected by the Constituency Labour party and a proper socialist is selected in his place.

[RedJ]

A man who represents people in the Liverpool area yet chose to write for The Sun. Proper principled bloke, eh.

[BillyStubbsTears]

He's always struck me as bizarrely out of place in any variant of the Labour party. He's had some very right-wing views on social issues (steered by his quite fundamentalist Anglican faith) and he always seemed to take great delight in being an awkward sod.

In my book, he shouldn't have had the chance to resign the whip - he should have had it removed for siding with May on the Brexit vote a few weeks ago and saving her from a vote of no confidence. That was totally unacceptable, even in a Corbyn-led Labour party.

[hoolahoop]

He's always struck me as bizarrely out of place in any variant of the Labour party. He's had some very right-wing views on social issues (steered by his quite fundamentalist Anglican faith) and he always seemed to take great delight in being an awkward sod.

In my book, he shouldn't have had the chance to resign the whip - he should have had it removed for siding with May on the Brexit vote a few weeks ago and saving her from a vote of no confidence. That was totally unacceptable, even in a Corbyn-led Labour party.

I couldn't agree more however Corbyn was never likely to deprive anyone of the whip given his past opposition to Labour policies. He's toast from now on - Hoey , Mann and the other knobrot to sort out now.

[bpoolrover]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-45359009   Sad day 1 if the few mps I like

He's not died you know and he's still an MP - at least until the next election when he will be deselected by the Constituency Labour party and a proper socialist is selected in his place.

no its sad he feels the need to resign due to anti semitism

[BillyStubbsTears]

If you think anti-semitism is the only reason he's resigned, you're being taken for a ride.

[wilts rover]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-45359009   Sad day 1 if the few mps I like

He's not died you know and he's still an MP - at least until the next election when he will be deselected by the Constituency Labour party and a proper socialist is selected in his place.

no its sad he feels the need to resign due to anti semitism

No its bizarre. He resigns the whip because of anti-semitism in the Labour Party yet still wants to remain a member of this anti-semitic party! Talk about double standards.

[tommy toes]

Bpool
The Labour Party has been labelled as anti semitic mainly because they dare to voice concerns about the treatment of, and atrocities done in Palestine and of Palestinian Jews by the Zionists when everyone else, (especially the US who continue to fund the state of Israel and provide troops to fight their wars) turn a blind eye to any wrongdoing ( and there's been plenty)....for fear of being branded anti semitic.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Tommy

You know that's not right.

The Labour party has been branded anti-Semitic because

a) there ARE some nasty anti-semites in the membership and some of them need chucking out of the party
2) The leadership has stupidly allowed the issue to fester by the amateurish way that it's approached the IHRA definition. The leadership could have put this issue to bed but they've allowed a bunch of gobshites who never grew out of student politics debates to keep the focus on it.

3) Corbyn has said and done some things in the past that are hostages to fortune. I don't believe he is anti-Semitic but he's made it very easy to portray him that way.

It's nothing whatsoever to do with criticising Israeli Govt policy. You can easily do that without any hint of anti-semitism. The way Labour has dealt with this issue over the summer has stupidly conflated the two and actually makes it harder to hold Israel to account.

[tommy toes]

Fair enough. But it begs the question as to why there are so many anti semitic or anti Zionists members of the party and I do believe it stems from the treatment of Palestinians over the last 20 years.
No way is Corbyn a racist yet it's clear where his sympathies lie on this issue.

[BillyStubbsTears]

TT.

I agree entirely. But the thing is, for very understandable historic reasons, Jews fight against perceived anti-semitism harder than any other ethnic/religious groups and so you are very likely to be held to account if you give any indication that you are anti-Semitic.

I agree entirely that Israel Govt policy towards the Palestinians is disgraceful. But Israel exists in a region where hundreds of millions of its neighbours deny its right to exist. I don't agree with Israel's response, but with the Holocaust in living memory, I am prepared to accept that it's not a one way argument.

Less than two decades ago, BOTH sides in the Israel/Palestine conflict were working towards compromise. Israel took a lurch to hard right nationalism partly in response to the Palestinians rejecting Arafat's peaceable approach and moving towards Hamas who are committed to destroying Israel. Corbyn's uncritical support for Hamas makes it easy to finger him as an anti-Semite.

As I say, I don't think he is. But I DO think he has a deeply immature and one-dimensional approach to foreign affairs. For him it's simple. Ask yourself who is stronger and who is weaker in any conflict. His Marxist analisys says that the stronger side must be the oppressor so you have to support the weaker.

It's why he never seriously criticised Russia. Not for Grozny. Not for Aleppo. Not for Crimea. Not for North Ossetia.  Not for Salisbury. Because for him, Russia is in a fight with America and since America is stronger and therefore  the oppressor, his policy is to support Russia. Even when they destroy cities and annex other countries' territory.

Similar with Israel. He will never condemn Hamas because his philosophy insists that Israel is the bad guy. But Hamas ARE anti-Semitic. So, as a friend of Hamas, he is easy to paint as an anti-Semite.

He'll never put this to bed because that would mean relinquishing a lifetime's committment to this immature view of world politics.

[tommy toes]

Yes, as much as I like Corbyn's policies he can be stupidly naive and stubborn and makes himself an easy target as he won't compromise.
Signing up to the IHRA agreement may have put this to bed but the minutiae  got in the way.

[BillyStubbsTears]

That's what you get with Corbyn.  It'll never change. The Left think it's more of an insult to call someone a compromiser than to call them a Kitson.

It's been my worry all along. Corbyn can get the domestic and economic policies spot on (and he has) but it's pointless if his foreign policy is like passing ammunition to the enemy to destroy his credibility at home.

He's not going to f**king well solve Israel/Palestine. But by allowing the focus to stay on his opinions on that topic, he'll probably f**k up his chances of becoming PM. And then it doesn't matter how good his domestic policies are because he'll never get the chance to put them into practice.

[Bentley Bullet]

Billy, Do you think despite his foreign policies his domestic policies would be fulfillable if he was voted in?

[BillyStubbsTears]

BB

Yes. They are mainly textbook economics of the sort that have been taught to undergraduate economics students for three generations.

It's Austerity which is Voodoo Economics. It has no support in either economic theory or experience. There were two major academic papers which were used to lend support to Austerity in 2010. Both have been demonstrated to have been based on schoolboy errors (and that's another FACT not an arguable opinion - one of them added up the numbers incorrectly in an Excel spreadshedt. When the error was found, it reversed the conusion of the paper. Debt didn't lead to bad economic performance. Bad economic performance led to debt. And so reducing debt AS A NO1 PRIORITY, which is what these idiots have done for the past decade, will not lead to an improved economy.)

We've known this since the 1930s. All that McDonnell is proposing is that we go back to the economics that we already know to work, and Chuck out the nonsense that has given us the worst recovery in 200 years and suppressed everyone's wages for a decade.

[The Red Baron]

You have to ask yourself why, given the shambles that currently is the Government, that Labour aren't well ahead in the polls. I suspect if someone like Ed Miliband or Yvette Cooper were Leader of the Opposition, Labour would have a double digit lead.

[BillyStubbsTears]

TRB

There is regular evidence from polls which Corbynistas refuse to engage with.

Every time ordinary people are asked who would make the best PM, they overwhelmingly choose May over Corbyn.

And there's the answer to your question. The worst PM in a century is considered by ordinary people to be far better than a leader that the Labour new membership think is infallible.

[Geoff Blakesley]

I struggle to know what Corbyn stands for. He was just about a remainer prior to the brexit vote but he was so limp wristed in his support that he encouraged a brexit vote and me immediately leaving the labour party.

[tommy toes]

Unfortunately Corbyn isn't a remainer and never was. He's always been skeptical about the EU which is why as on many things including the anti semitism row he's been absent.

[hoolahoop]

I struggle to know what Corbyn stands for. He was just about a remainer prior to the brexit vote but he was so limp wristed in his support that he encouraged a brexit vote and me immediately leaving the labour party.

And that leaves you with a dilemma GB , who would you vote for right now if at all ?

[wilts rover]

You have to ask yourself why, given the shambles that currently is the Government, that Labour aren't well ahead in the polls. I suspect if someone like Ed Miliband or Yvette Cooper were Leader of the Opposition, Labour would have a double digit lead.

Them pesky polls
http://uk.businessinsider.com/poll-labour-would-go-backwards-under-yvette-cooper-or-chuka-umunna-2017-5

[bpoolrover]

https://yougov.co.uk/news/categories/politics/ think these were the most accurate at the last election it's staggering that at this stage it's even close, surely they need to get rid of corbyn and McDonnell

[BillyStubbsTears]

Wilts

Aye. Them polls.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/5611f0zc0v/InternalResults_170212_LabourLeadership_W.pdf

[Glyn_Wigley]

Wilts

Aye. Them polls.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/5611f0zc0v/InternalResults_170212_LabourLeadership_W.pdf

They're a bit out of date though.

[The Red Baron]

You have to ask yourself why, given the shambles that currently is the Government, that Labour aren't well ahead in the polls. I suspect if someone like Ed Miliband or Yvette Cooper were Leader of the Opposition, Labour would have a double digit lead.

Them pesky polls
http://uk.businessinsider.com/poll-labour-would-go-backwards-under-yvette-cooper-or-chuka-umunna-2017-5

May 2017? We're talking about Peak Corbyn, and you can't argue that he didn't have a good General Election campaign last year. But a lot has happened since then.

[BillyStubbsTears]

TRB

That's precisely it.

Comparisons between Labour's support with (a well-known) Corbyn or with (barely known) hypothetical replacements are pointless.

The link I posted says that only 54% of voters knew who Cooper was, and only 39% knew who Umunna was. Whereas 94% knew Corbyn. So asking them if they'd be more likely to vote Labour with Umunna or Cooper in charge is an utterly pointless question.

And of course, that's never going to be the question anyway, as Wilts knows only too well because he's a smart lad. Umunna or Cooper are never going to be serious contenders in the present Labour party. The better question is whether Labour would be more acceptable to voters with Khan or Starmer or even Long-Bailey as leader.

[wilts rover]

May 2017 (before the GE) was Corbyn and Labour polling at their lowest point since he became leader, hence why May called the election. Half the shadow cabinet had resigned over triggering article 50 and there had been a leadership challenge.

So even then, with Labour doing a lot worse in the polls than they are now, as the poll I posted demonstrated. replacing Corbyn would see Labour loose even more support.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/08/17/jeremy-corbyn-remains-more-popular-theresa-may/

[BillyStubbsTears]

Wilts

The point is that pretty much ALWAYS happens in polls where the alternatives proposed are not well known.

That does not mean that the alternatives would or would not actually perform better than Corbyn if they had replaced him and had the resultant increased media profile.

Those sort of poll questions are essentially meaningless because they are asking people to judge something that they have zero experience of (ie what the alternatives would actually be like if they were the leader.)

Look at the case of Gordon Brown. He was far more popular than Blair in 2006 before he became leader. By 2009, he had some of the worst PM polling scores on record.

What is an established fact is that Corbyn is now three years into being Labour leader and he's had a lot of media exposure. People have mostly made up their minds what they think of him. And poll after poll has him trailing way behind the worst PM in a century on the question of who people would prefer as PM.

I'd have thought that fact ought to make the Corbynistas stop and consider whether there might be a problem with their project.