Corbynomics: A Dystopia

Generali

gadgetmind wrote: »

Definitely the beginning of the end.

"Labour shadow minister tells journalists Jeremy Corbyn is a 'f***ing disgrace' after angry meeting"

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-shadow-minister-tells-journalists-jeremy-corbyn-is-a-fing-disgrace-after-angry-meeting-a6737306.html

Shame as I'd have loved to see Labour going into a GE with him still at the helm.

How to get rid of him though? Labour, I think I'm right in saying, have never sacked a leader.

cells

gadgetmind wrote: »

Shame as I'd have loved to see Labour going into a GE with him still at the helm.

why risk it

if you believe he would be terrible for the country its best that he isn't on the ballet paper.

gadgetmind

They'd be fighting each other so much that they'd never get anything done, and the less a government does the better IME!

gadgetmind

Wow, this one is worth reading.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34844762

"I am trying to respect the mandate he has but I felt physically sick, I just couldn't stand it."

"He is not fit to be our leader or in any senior position in this country."

Labour leader "fundamentally misunderstands" the nature of the security threat we face, and that he has shown in recent days, that "none of his gut instincts chime with the public beyond his niche group".

With your own party saying things like that, either he goes or there'll be a massive schism.

Moby

gadgetmind wrote: »

Wow, this one is worth reading.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34844762

"I am trying to respect the mandate he has but I felt physically sick, I just couldn't stand it."

"He is not fit to be our leader or in any senior position in this country."

Labour leader "fundamentally misunderstands" the nature of the security threat we face, and that he has shown in recent days, that "none of his gut instincts chime with the public beyond his niche group".

With your own party saying things like that, either he goes or there'll be a massive schism.

There won't be a schism. It's not the same as the emergence of the SDP. Corbyn does not represent a significant enough faction within Labour to result in a new party with new policies.....a new movement so to speak.
Hopefully he'll see how the wind is blowing and jack it in within a year or two. The polls and coming elections in Wales, Scotland and local England will give pointers.

tincans6

Generali wrote: »

How to get rid of him though? Labour, I think I'm right in saying, have never sacked a leader.

But then politicians always resign don't they ?

James Callaghan effectively forced out when the party decided to change voting for a leader to an electoral college where the unions would have 40% of the vote.

He resigned so that the old rules (MP's only) would apply.

They voted Foot in anyway.

D'oh !

tincans6

Moby wrote: »

There won't be a schism. It's not the same as the emergence of the SDP. Corbyn does not represent a significant enough faction within Labour to result in a new party with new policies.....a new movement so to speak.
Hopefully he'll see how the wind is blowing and jack it in within a year or two. The polls and coming elections in Wales, Scotland and local England will give pointers.

Surely the problem is that Corbyn reflects the views of a majority of the broad membership - which seems miles to the left of the parliamentary party.

There are few left wing MP's compared to the early 1980's but it would be easy for the members (and Unions) to foist left wing leaders on the party come the next leadership election.

It will require sufficient years of opposition to educate the membership that the electorate aren't really waiting for a great leap forward and full on socialism.

If the Tories are protecting health, pension and education spending whilst increasing the minimum wage to a level that Miliband could not dream about - on what grounds do Labour fight any election ?

setmefree2

gadgetmind wrote: »

Definitely the beginning of the end.

"Labour shadow minister tells journalists Jeremy Corbyn is a 'f***ing disgrace' after angry meeting"

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-shadow-minister-tells-journalists-jeremy-corbyn-is-a-fing-disgrace-after-angry-meeting-a6737306.html

Shame as I'd have loved to see Labour going into a GE with him still at the helm.

I just watched the last hour (of one and a half hours) of HoC debate on the Paris Attacks - I've never seen anything like it - the Labour MPs were attacking Corbyn and Stop the Wars position more than Cameron. I've never heard Cameron say "I agree with you 100%" or "Of course my R honorable friend the Labour party member for .....is 100% correct" -

When it's up on you tube watch Ian Austin Labour MP - practically accused Corbyn and Stop the War of fueling terrorism in the UK.

Honestly never seen anything like it.

gadgetmind

Moby wrote: »

There won't be a schism.

Maybe time for a vote in a new thread?

Schism in next two years.
Jihadi Jez ousted in next two years.
Whole lot rumbles on belching smoke and popping cogs until the next GE and then Corbyn does "a Miliband". No tears are shed.

setmefree2

Labour MPs criticise Corbyn and Stop the War Coalition

Labour MPs have lined up in the Commons to support David Cameron, criticise Jeremy Corbyn and condemn the Stop the War Coalition.
Shadow Europe minister Pat McFadden was joined by former front benchers Chris Leslie, Chuka Umunna and Emma Reynolds in sharp attacks.
Backbench MPs Mike Gapes and Ian Austin also signalled some Labour support for Mr Cameron's bid to join the bombing of the so-called Islamic State in Syria.
The MPs recalled an apparent Stop the War statement blaming French military action for the attacks in Paris. Mr Corbyn was chairman of the pressure group for four years.
Mr Corbyn's apparent reluctance to support the right of police to shoot to kill when confronting terrorists was also highlighted.

Former Labour minister Mr Austin said: "I agree with everything the Prime Minister said about Syria and about terrorism.
"Does he agree with me that those that say Paris is reaping the whirlwind of western policy or who want to say Britain's foreign policy has increased, not diminished, the risks to our own national security are not just absolving the terrorists of responsibility but risk fuelling the sense of grievance and resentment which can develop into extremism and terrorism."

Ms Reynolds, who quit as shadow communities secretary when Mr Corbyn won the leadership, said: "Does the Prime Minister agree full responsibility for the attacks in Paris lies solely with the terrorists and any attempt by any organisation to somehow blame the West or France's military intervention in Syria is not only wrong, disgraceful, but also should be condemned?"

Mr McFadden, a current frontbencher, added: "Can I ask the Prime Minister to reject the view that sees terrorist acts as always being a response or a reaction to what we in the West do? Does he agree with me that such an approach risks infantilising the terrorists and treating them as children when the truth is they are adults entirely responsible for what they do.
"No one forces them to kill innocent people in Paris or Beirut and unless we are clear about that we will fail even to be able to understand the threat we face let alone confront it and ultimately overcome it."
Mr Cameron replied: "It is that sort of moral and intellectual clarity that is necessary in dealing with terrorists."
Mr Umunna said: "I agree with all the comments about the number one priority of this Government being the safeguarding of the national security of those we represent.
"That extends to every single member of this House."

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14037159.Labour_MPs_criticise_Corbyn_and_Stop_the_War_Coalition/