2020 Labour Leadership Election

[EastAnglianLefty]

I'm not sure it would make them behave better - those who faced credible trigger ballot challenges this time did not for the most part become markedly less confrontational, they just put more effort into mobilising their pre-existing supporters.

It's also something that only really works if we have reliable dates for elections. Even if you could fit it in in the run-up to a snap general election, a vicious intra-party fight at the local level is hardly the best way to kick off a campaign.

[CumbrianLefty]

Corbynistas on social media becoming increasingly vocal in demanding this contest be delayed or even scrapped altogether. Still appears highly unlikely to happen, though.

[EastAnglianLefty]

Also a fair amount of criticism of Starmer's recent actions or lack thereof from the same quarters. Quite what the Shadow Minister for a department that doesn't even exist any more is supposed to do about an issue that doesn't really relate to his brief isn't entirely clear. I think it's probably most generously thought of as displacement activity.

[DaWN]

Corbynistas on social media becoming increasingly vocal in demanding this contest be delayed or even scrapped altogether. Still appears highly unlikely to happen, though.

For what particular reason? The result is being announced behind closed doors and nobody is casting any votes in person? Is it just Corbynites desperate to extend the amount of time they're inflicting their Messiah on the rest of us?

[CumbrianLefty]

Barring the totally unexpected, it was Corbyn's last PMQs as leader today. He actually did pretty well.

[DaWN]

Uh-huh.

[brucejoel99]

Uh-huh.

Are people truly this dense?

[DaWN]

Uh-huh.

Are people truly this dense?

Oh yes

[CumbrianLefty]

Barring the totally unexpected, it was Corbyn's last PMQs as leader today. He actually did pretty well.

Well that was wrong, his absolute definite last appearance (honest) was today.

Again, he rose to the occasion.

Enjoy your retirement, mate - hopefully it isn't embarrassing as your old pal Livingstone's.

[brucejoel99]

Barring the totally unexpected, it was Corbyn's last PMQs as leader today. He actually did pretty well.

Well that was wrong, his absolute definite last appearance (honest) was today.

Again, he rose to the occasion.

Enjoy your retirement, mate - hopefully it isn't embarrassing as your old pal Livingstone's.

Man, watching PMQs with hardly anybody in the chamber is really f**king weird; unsettlingly so.

[DaWN]

For those of you who wish to avoid being sick in your own mouth, avoid Twitter, as Labourites are gushing over their beloved Jeremy. An incompetent old racist who destroyed their party for a generation and they are showering him with praise like nothing else. And you all wonder why I think there's no hope.

[CumbrianLefty]

Such bitterness is unhealthy, man. Are you actually Ian Austin?

(I'm starting to see the same sort of thing amongst some hardcore Corbynites regarding the likely new leadership, btw - its not going to be any more productive or desirable in that case either)

[Antonio the Sixth]

Such bitterness is unhealthy, man. Are you actually Ian Austin?

(I'm starting to see the same sort of thing amongst some hardcore Corbynites regarding the likely new leadership, btw - its not going to be any more productive or desirable in that case either)

Rabid factionalism worked so well for Labour in the 50s and 80s after all!

[EastAnglianLefty]

It has to be borne in mind that a lot of that tendency are much more focused on having power within the party than within the country. Particularly since the ones on Twitter seem much more likely to have previously been in Trot groups than the median Corbyn supporter.

[cp]

For those of you who wish to avoid being sick in your own mouth, avoid Twitter, as Labourites are gushing over their beloved Jeremy. An incompetent old racist who destroyed their party for a generation and they are showering him with praise like nothing else. And you all wonder why I think there's no hope.

Calling Corbyn racist only reveals how deeply into mindless baseless invective one's opinion forming abilities have sunk.

Corbyn came up short in the contest of the past few years, and for that I'm always going to feel disappointed. But that's a reflection of his (lack of) political acumen and the inability of his team to respond with agility to rapidly changing events. His shortcomings were political, not ethical, and even despite them I think he's going to be the inspiration for a generation of young people who will try to make their country a better place.

[Blair]

The one stumbling block I have to saying there isn't an ethical issue with Corbyn is that I'm still not sure how you can look at that Mural and not see that there was something extremely wrong with it.

[CumbrianLefty]

IIRC the man who created it blithely claimed the dodgy stuff just referred to "bankers" and Corbyn went along with that. Which does show a dismaying lack of knowledge of - or interest in - AS memes at the very least.

[Coldstream]

The one stumbling block I have to saying there isn't an ethical issue with Corbyn is that I'm still not sure how you can look at that Mural and not see that there was something extremely wrong with it.

The only reasonable defence of Corbyn is that he’s too stupid or ignorant to understand why it was racist. Which may be true, he’s always struck me as dense whenever I’ve been to his rallies, but is just disqualifying in a different way to if he’s a full on bigot.

[cp]

The one stumbling block I have to saying there isn't an ethical issue with Corbyn is that I'm still not sure how you can look at that Mural and not see that there was something extremely wrong with it.

The only reasonable defence of Corbyn is that he’s too stupid or ignorant to understand why it was racist. Which may be true, he’s always struck me as dense whenever I’ve been to his rallies, but is just disqualifying in a different way to if he’s a full on bigot.

For what it's worth, Corbyn condemned the mural and disavowed it once it was brought to his attention. The explanation he gave was that he didn't look closely enough at the image of the mural when it was sent to him on Facebook. As excuses go it's perfectly plausible, but also just convenient enough that if you're already disinclined to give him the benefit of the doubt you can let it damn him without giving it much thought.

[Coldstream]

The one stumbling block I have to saying there isn't an ethical issue with Corbyn is that I'm still not sure how you can look at that Mural and not see that there was something extremely wrong with it.

The only reasonable defence of Corbyn is that he’s too stupid or ignorant to understand why it was racist. Which may be true, he’s always struck me as dense whenever I’ve been to his rallies, but is just disqualifying in a different way to if he’s a full on bigot.

For what it's worth, Corbyn condemned the mural and disavowed it once it was brought to his attention. The explanation he gave was that he didn't look closely enough at the image of the mural when it was sent to him on Facebook. As excuses go it's perfectly plausible, but also just convenient enough that if you're already disinclined to give him the benefit of the doubt you can let it damn him without giving it much thought.

If that’s true, it just shows how incompetent and unfit he was. He supports a mural that he knows has been taken down for bigotry by Lutfur Rahman - a man not exactly famed as a friend of the Jews - without even looking at it, at the very least it shows he lacks any basic observational ability.

[CumbrianLefty]

The one stumbling block I have to saying there isn't an ethical issue with Corbyn is that I'm still not sure how you can look at that Mural and not see that there was something extremely wrong with it.

The only reasonable defence of Corbyn is that he’s too stupid or ignorant to understand why it was racist. Which may be true, he’s always struck me as dense whenever I’ve been to his rallies, but is just disqualifying in a different way to if he’s a full on bigot.

Corbyn certainly has limitations, but a truly "dense" or "thick" person would surely not have done as well in the election debates (both 2017 and 2019) as he did.

IMO its more an almost total lack of interest in anything outside his "comfort zone", exacerbated by having been on the Labour backbenches for so long.

[cp]

The one stumbling block I have to saying there isn't an ethical issue with Corbyn is that I'm still not sure how you can look at that Mural and not see that there was something extremely wrong with it.

The only reasonable defence of Corbyn is that he’s too stupid or ignorant to understand why it was racist. Which may be true, he’s always struck me as dense whenever I’ve been to his rallies, but is just disqualifying in a different way to if he’s a full on bigot.

For what it's worth, Corbyn condemned the mural and disavowed it once it was brought to his attention. The explanation he gave was that he didn't look closely enough at the image of the mural when it was sent to him on Facebook. As excuses go it's perfectly plausible, but also just convenient enough that if you're already disinclined to give him the benefit of the doubt you can let it damn him without giving it much thought.

If that’s true, it just shows how incompetent and unfit he was. He supports a mural that he knows has been taken down for bigotry by Lutfur Rahman - a man not exactly famed as a friend of the Jews - without even looking at it, at the very least it shows he lacks any basic observational ability.

He didn't support the mural. He questioned the reason for it being taken down having supposed that it was solely because it carried a leftist message, which is defensible on free speech grounds, though still kind of obtuse. Guilt by association with Rahman doesn't really apply here, as there's no reason to believe he knew who the artist was any more than there's reason to believe he gave the image itself more than a glancing look. I'm not sure that constitutes a lack of 'basic observational ability'. It seems more likely (or at any rate, just as plausible) a sign that he was a 65 year old man looking at an image on a mobile phone screen.

But, again, to my earlier point, the whole controversy, like pretty much all the altercations about antisemitism involving Corbyn's Labour, was essentially a Rorschach test for a person's preexisting views of Corbyn as a person or his policies.

[Coldstream]

The one stumbling block I have to saying there isn't an ethical issue with Corbyn is that I'm still not sure how you can look at that Mural and not see that there was something extremely wrong with it.

The only reasonable defence of Corbyn is that he’s too stupid or ignorant to understand why it was racist. Which may be true, he’s always struck me as dense whenever I’ve been to his rallies, but is just disqualifying in a different way to if he’s a full on bigot.

Corbyn certainly has limitations, but a truly "dense" or "thick" person would surely not have done as well in the election debates (both 2017 and 2019) as he did.

IMO its more an almost total lack of interest in anything outside his "comfort zone", exacerbated by having been on the Labour backbenches for so long.

You must have watched different debates to me, because I don’t think he did well at all - nor do I recall anyone giving him plaudits in the style, say, Clegg got in 2010. The only thing I can remember anyone even noting about his performance was when he said “Epsh-tyne”.

He may have got a bounce in 2017 from it, but that’s because May chose to commit suicide by sending up the grieving Amber Rudd in her stead, nothing to do with his own performance.

If you mean he’s capable of standing still and delivering Pre-prepared lines, then yeah sure that’s just about true, but that’s quite a lot below what I’d consider the bar for intelligent.

[Coldstream]

The one stumbling block I have to saying there isn't an ethical issue with Corbyn is that I'm still not sure how you can look at that Mural and not see that there was something extremely wrong with it.

The only reasonable defence of Corbyn is that he’s too stupid or ignorant to understand why it was racist. Which may be true, he’s always struck me as dense whenever I’ve been to his rallies, but is just disqualifying in a different way to if he’s a full on bigot.

For what it's worth, Corbyn condemned the mural and disavowed it once it was brought to his attention. The explanation he gave was that he didn't look closely enough at the image of the mural when it was sent to him on Facebook. As excuses go it's perfectly plausible, but also just convenient enough that if you're already disinclined to give him the benefit of the doubt you can let it damn him without giving it much thought.

If that’s true, it just shows how incompetent and unfit he was. He supports a mural that he knows has been taken down for bigotry by Lutfur Rahman - a man not exactly famed as a friend of the Jews - without even looking at it, at the very least it shows he lacks any basic observational ability.

He didn't support the mural. He questioned the reason for it being taken down having supposed that it was solely because it carried a leftist message, which is defensible on free speech grounds, though still kind of obtuse. Guilt by association with Rahman doesn't really apply here, as there's no reason to believe he knew who the artist was any more than there's reason to believe he gave the image itself more than a glancing look. I'm not sure that constitutes a lack of 'basic observational ability'. It seems more likely (or at any rate, just as plausible) a sign that he was a 65 year old man looking at an image on a mobile phone screen.

But, again, to my earlier point, the whole controversy, like pretty much all the altercations about antisemitism involving Corbyn's Labour, was essentially a Rorschach test for a person's preexisting views of Corbyn as a person or his policies.

You misunderstood my point about Rahman. Even Rahman thought it was racist, yet Corbyn despite knowing Rahman had had it removed on the grounds of anti-semitism still supported its inclusion.

 Corbyn did know this, since that was the point of the Facebook post in question. So your defence that he didn’t look at the mural in question means that at least his instinctive reaction to an accusation of anti-semitism is to dismiss it.

Or, it means that he’s an idiot who posts in defence of a mural despite not looking at the mural or learning why it was removed. I’d expect even 12 year olds to at least do one of those things. Either way, not fit for office.

It’s a moot point now anyway. If you want to deny anti-semitism that’s your business, but it’s a settled issue for most people. But I worked for the Labour Party in the last election, and I saw on the doorsteps that the majority of the public thought Corbyn was a racist - and it’s one of the major reasons that he suffered such a brutal and personal repudiation in December.

[DaWN]

Whatever the semantics, it is hard to deny that Corbyn was, at best, apathetic to the antisemitism, which is damming enough for me in of itself. It's not my only moral objection to him though. His response to the Skripal Affair (you know, when the Russian government accidentally killed British citizens on British soil) being 'How dare you say such horrible things about my mate Vladimir!' was frankly sickening. Plus the seemingly never-ending list of awful people he associates with; the IRA, Hamas, anti-semitic terrorists he was happy to leave a wreath at the grave of...

This is pointless now anyway - I need to stop thinking about him and all of this, my stress levels are high enough as they are. Not long before he's gone and (with a bit of luck) I won't hear about him again until his obituary.