Jeremy Corbyn vs Angela Eagle

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/b1/e8/aa/b1e8aa32b00a88a716558be4cf10c099.jpg

of course, all this is assuming that Corbyn is not kept off the ballot, and that no other challengers stand in addition to Eagle. Labour currently has over 500,000 members, with at least 60% of those having joined in the last year:

http://labourlist.org/2016/07/post-referendum-boost-means-labour-now-has-over-half-a-million-members/

people seem to think that a majority of new people joining are pro-Corbyn, though it's hard to be sure and there are indications that some anti-Corbyn types who left the party when he became leader are now rejoining to vote against him. it's also been pointed out that a lot of the new members are likely people who signed up as £3 "registered supporters" in order to vote for Corbyn last year, and so would not add anything to his share of the vote. still, another Corbyn victory seems to be the most likely outcome at this point, yes?

Eagle apparently wants people who have joined in the last six months to be barred from voting (according to sympathetic press) so idk if she is confident that 130k people have signed up in the last two weeks to vote against him.

I can't imagine a big portion of the 100000 new party members being anti-Corbyn, but I don't have any solid evidence to back this inkling up. How does anybody know? You can't even reliably poll people anymore.

xp that's interesting, how would they justify a ban? concerns about "entryism"? (ignoring the fact that if every single member of every trot groupsicle in the UK joined the Labour party that would still probably amount to less than 5% of 130k?) also clashes with Kinnock's appeal for people to join to vote against Corbyn, "Saving Labour" etc

there seem to be a fair number of complaints from long term members about newly signed up Corbynistas taking control of the direction of the party (and often not turning up to local meetings or campaigns), whereas the people who have spent years knocking on doors and stuffing envelopes are more sceptical of Corbyn, not sure how accuarate this is. it makes an odd reversal from the days when the party's activist base was assumed to be more radical than the party membership in general (and the right of the party pushed for one member one vote for this very reason)

politics has become so shit it has gone full circle and become amazing

this is def correct re: leaflets and such. they have tried to introduce similar restrictions on votes for the Manchester mayoral candidates

Some people's definition of "entryism" is very undemocratic. The numbers Corbyn gets probably goes beyond young people and the old left, but this phenomenon is not something that interests the media. They just want him to disappear so we can continue on with a 2 party system.

/1 party system

political parties complaining because too many people want to get involved but don't want to do the donkey work that used to be yr apprenticeship, fucking parliamentary democracy man, get out of the way you staid fuckers

I won't be voting but in a straight contest then Corbyn without thinking twice, and I don't even rate Corbyn particularly highly as a leader. And if I'm thinking that then Eagle is going to be absolutely slaughtered in a contest with over half a million voters.

I'll be voting for Corbyn. But I don't want to get into the adversarial stuff - I quite like eagle! I dislike her challenge, though.

i will be voting for corbyn, again

though, not living in england, i will rather be replying to an email from my dad which will say 'ballot paper arrived for you, do you want to vote for jeremy bloody corbyn again,' to which i will reply 'thanks dad'

i am sort of curious about the kinds of behavior which corbynites don't take part in, and which, it is implied, possess some kind of magical efficacy: as if half a million people turning up to local meetings would somehow lead to socialism in our time via some underpants-gnomic middle step

i mean, i feel like its just the over-40 version of sharing a bunch of tiresome shit on social media really

it's an old school model of politics - hard-working member selflessly grafting away on tasks that are completely fucking useless just because that's how the game is played

I guess the concern is not just that new members are less likely to be activists, but that they are setting up a parallel activist base that operates through social media and Momentum rather than the traditional CLP structure (but the local parties still select council and parliamentary candidates and representatives for the conference amongst various other things)

Circling the wagons because the next generation has rejected your failed methods.

im not with the vitriol against corbyn i keep seeing on social media but all i seem to keep seeing from him is about wanting to be someone questioning the tories in power, there is little interest in actually leading the country. obv this might be the best we can hope for right now if may isnt going to call an election, but it just speaks of the low ambition in labour right now. i know hes prob feeling quite pleased right now with the boost in members, and this new swell in support, but while corbyn makes good sense as someone to challenge the tories, what about when there is an opportunity to perhaps defeat them? i dont imagine corbyn would know what to do, or be happy in that position. supporting corbyn for that reason i think is only good for the short term.

Why do you imagine that?

The idea of trying to stop people who joined your political party, for any means or reasoning, from having a say is absolutely abhorrent. To say "we want to ignore our own supporters" really giving a strong message to labour being the opposition to THE MAN, man.

https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13612215_10153734318186463_8270868887075675891_n.jpg?oh=25a22ee7c28ed8fd2c612eb5a3b914a8&oe=57F56865

i think hes deleted that tweet though.

the newer one is -

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en-gb"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">I want Labour to win power to democratise it. Focusing on "winning" alone hoards power, ignores real needs & ultimately leads to defeat</p>— Jon Lansman (@jonlansman) <a href="https://twitter.com/jonlansman/status/752105701640732672";>10 July 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

argh. https://twitter.com/jonlansman/status/752105701640732672

In the absence of a better challenger, Corbyn again. Got to be better options than Eagle, surely?

christ the replies to that tweet from Blue Labour, i can't do this to myself

Hilary Benn came out swinging - reminding him that Labour winning elections paved the way for free eye tests for the over 60s and SureStart. Boom.

New Labour - did a lot of good work for charidee, didn't like to talk about it

In the grand scheme of things, who's to say that 272 dead Iraqis per SureStart centre opened wasn't a ratio worth paying? History will judge but it's a bit early now.

Eagle's launch doesn't seem to have contained much in the way of policy direction.

This vote was a message from millions in our country who felt no one had listened to them for a very long time. For many, it was a howl of pain.

Now.. "How on earth do we bring hope to parts of our country that feel they have been neglected for years?”

“How do we protect jobs, investment and living standards?”

“How do we remain an open tolerant society?”

“And will we stay a United Kingdom?”

idk but setting out some kind of vision wouldn't go amiss.

as a former SureStart employee i would go with "not worth it"

“How do we protect jobs, investment and living standards?”

There's an awful lot of people looking for a bit more than "protection" for their shitty low-paid jobs

“How do we remain an open tolerant society?”

lol you were parachuted into your constituency and you worked with Blair and Straw

“And will we stay a United Kingdom?”

nobody sane gives a fuck about this btw

Can it really be less than a year ago that she was complaining Osborne brought the National Living Wage in too quickly?

Eagle asked why she can beat May, simply replies: "Because she's a Tory".

Seems legit.

Does Tory lite beat Tory.
Sounds like a Taste test, or a Harry Hill skit.

If the opposition to Corbyn were putting up anyone at all inspiring or with any apparent integrity even, you know, a bit ballsy and confident I'd think about it. But they're not so obvioulsy I'm going to vote for Corbyn.

Eagle asked why she can beat May, simply replies: "Because she's a Tory".

This phrase should be included in style guide books to demonstrate the importance of quotation marks.

the "Because she's a Tory" thing seems particularly unfortunate given that Eagle's whole campaign seems to boil down to "I can win and Jeremy can't" (she repeatedly refused to answer questions about policy differences between herself and Corbyn during her Peston interview, saying that it's not about policy but "leadership"), if she can't give a non-embarrassing answer to the question "how can you defeat May" then what's the point?

THis leadership that she's shown and Jeremy so clearly can't deliver. Where has she shown it?

Did anybody show the full video of her announcement. Is more of it sneaking out now?
Or was the Conservative announcement so much more important. I guess it's a lot more immediate.
BUt God would love it if nothing really could happen before the break.
Other tahn Eagle getting laughed at a lot or something.

Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.

Eagle has just dismissed John Humphreys reading out her voting record on Iraq, Chilcot, ID cards, welfare, etc as "a Corbynista meme".

Politics aside, idk how anyone can claim she has the media skills Corbyn is missing.

That much was absolutely confirmed by her clomping about in clown shoes yesterday.

She is actively worse than Liz Kendall, Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper etc. John Humphrys wasn't even playing hardball with her and it was just this car crash interview.

She has no response to the Iraq issue and she should really have worked one out by now.

The number of people making the same joke re 'Eagle attacks child' is as big a reason to reject her as any.

Haven't even been able to bear to watch her. It's so obvious she's being used by the progress mob and is gonna be dumped like an old mattress very soon.

I assume this is partially motivated by a desire to spend as little time in her constituency as possible. I grew up in Wallasey. I get it.

talking of which:

https://twitter.com/dats/status/752800373568659456

I assume this is partially motivated by a desire to spend as little time in her constituency as possible. I grew up in Wallasey. I get it.

― Michael Jones, Tuesday, July 12, 2016 10:48 AM (8 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Is this new for her, has she been hands on there?
Just wondering how good she is for anything. I should pay more attention to the political thing but am living abroad anyway.
& really not getting a very good impression of her from the last couple of weeks. Has she got a lot of support.
Still not sure about structure fo coup, or what was said to the people involved. Get rid of the trot and we'll put this person in charge. & that was the motivation. Or just get rid of the trot and we'll put this placeholder there and the Tories will fund us a bit more to be the overly similar opposition perpetually?

I'm mesmerised by the moment she realises there's no one left at her campaign launch to take questions, just the panic in her eyes, that's some Guy Goma shit.

Eagle has just dismissed John Humphreys reading out her voting record on Iraq, Chilcot, ID cards, welfare, etc as "a Corbynista meme".

people are not throwing enough bricks at these cretins

that's some Guy Goma shit.

now there's the first plausible unifying candidate I've seen suggested. Other people bring me problems, Matt DC brings me solutions.

I heard somebody refer to that announcement speech as powerful this morning too. Not sure fi anybody's seen more of it than i heard live at the time. I think possibly a bit more fo it was shown on BBC News yesterday evening. So not sure what other people's impressions of things are. Like if it was a more peripheral thing in a busy schedule for a punter what would they come away with?
Is the edited version the accepted version?

Still wondering if anybody who didn't hear Boris's speech the other day heard anything of him waffling about buses, which seemed a weird thing to do in a significant speech. & there are probably other recent examples of things that you only heard at the time they were said live and weren't otherwise reported.
Or were otherwise reframed

its time for this guy to leave. ive supported him, i *love* the man, and what he stands for, i think he is brilliant as someone to have in the labour party, to critique the status quo in society and hold tories to account, but this man is not a leader, and even if he is, he cant lead his own MPs. which is yknow, kinda what you want from a political party! he has the support of members, but perhaps he is only good for a protest vote, a person to get behind to say what you do not want, but not necessarily someone who knows what he does want, or how to get it, or what it would entail.

god knows if angela eagle is any good, but corbyn might be the best we have right now, but if we have a snap election, is he really going to get labour into power? what would that even look like right now? (in fairness, not sure what a new tory govt post brexit would look like either).

*and corbyn might be the best we have right now

Always useful to have someone spout the popular narrative on ILX

I haven't lived in Wallasey since '93, so she was only my MP for about a year. There was a link on one of the other threads regarding her path to selection, how Frank Field was involved in undermining the hard-left Labour candidate Lol Duffy in '87 (I remember the local freesheet going to town on the "Marxist"), who lost to Lynda Chalker by <300 votes, and was prevented from standing again (leading to the suspension of the Wallasey CLP, who supported him overwhelmingly) in '92. Eagle was effectively imposed on the constituency. I have no idea of how she is regarded locally, single airborne brick aside.

yeah i know its lame, im just repeating the usual spiel, and ive resisted it so far, after seeing the glee of anti corybyn so called labour supporters on social media, but im just starting to worry what will happen if we have an election. is everyone in this thread confident about a) a labour win b) corbyn leading the party after that point?

Eagle won't win power either. They've had nine months to plot this and the failure of organisation is genuinely astonishing even for this bunch of morons. If there was some guiding intelligence behind it you could imagine putting up Eagle as the stalking horse, and subsequently requiring a 'stop Eagle' candidate in addition to a 'stop Corbyn' one when she proves hopelessly incapable, might be engineered to induce the NEC to keep Corbyn off the ballot and have a proper contest but it's virtually inconceivable they are organised enough to plan something like that.

The thread title is a specific choice, but by all means, let the imagination run wild - who would you be confident about a labour win under?

I'll note you've not answered me asking about where you get "what about when there is an opportunity to perhaps defeat them? i dont imagine corbyn would know what to do, or be happy in that position. supporting corbyn for that reason i think is only good for the short term."

(I ask because there's an obvious subtext, which I don't know if you're implying or I'm inferring, of "can we trust him to kiss Murdoch's ring?")

https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/jeremy-gilbert/facing-facts-progressive-strategy-for-2020

this should be compulsory reading

If I already read it on the main thread can I get a note?

i take it you completely disagree with the argument, or else why wank on about "winning"?

Is that to me, NV? I don't believe I have - I'm very much in the "A victory by any means wouldn't be worth it"

i apologise for misreading you then Andrew, i need to turn down my class paranoia at this stage in the game

(also as an Irishman the phrase "how about a nice cup of tea and a coalition?" is never far from my lips)

If there is a snap election I'd be very surprised if Labour win, but I genuinely think there is a much higher chance of doing so under Corbyn than Eagle cos at least it's proven that a significant proportion of the electorate actually like him. And if they lose, I'd much rather the Corbynistas in opposition than the Blairites. So a no brainer really.

Though whether an election loss under Jezza would lead to the hard left retaining any kind of influence on the party is questionable, I guess. Either way, we don't have much to lose so we may as well go with our principles at this point.

ty for that link NV, i missed it on the other thread

yes that gilbert article is great

The thousands of #keepcorbyn comments on Eagle's facebook page!

photos of the window of angela eagle's office boarded up with vote remain placards :*(

how Frank Field was involved in undermining the hard-left Labour candidate Lol Duffy in '87 (I remember the local freesheet going to town on the "Marxist")

Marxist was accurate in Duffy's case though, he was a member/"supporter" of the trot group that became Alliance for Workers' Liberty (who seem to have been the only far-left party to have supported a Remain vote this year afaict)

17-15 win for the second vote on whether Corbyn should be on the ballot to be secret.

It's being taken as a strong indication they'll keep him off it.

Then it will look like an enormous stitch-up, and whoever gets in will face an immediate and ongoing crisis of legitimacy.

If they keep Corbyn off the ballot expect everyone to bundle in and Angela Eagle to be nowhere in the final voting.

and the number of votes to plummet

if they do try to keep him off the ballot then I can only imagine it will be a disaster, even from the pov of the Labour right. the pressure to reverse the decision will be immense, Corbyn's stand against the corrupt establishment will become the one and only issue of the whole leadership election campaign, and any discussion of his failings as leader will be off the agenda. I can't see any way that this would work out well for his opponents - I guess they hope they can tough it out and Corbyn's supporters will just leave the party in frustration?

they can't keep him off the ballot, he'll just have to be 51'ed on to it like everyone else. same difference really but

to think of all the unheeded warnings that scottish labours' intimate intwinement in the better together campaign could alienate their voters for good

It's nice that the Labour Party are finally working together to save Britain from a grave and terrible threat

Who would have guessed the threat would be a guy who cares about justice and welfare for poor people but isn't that great at working the media! I never would have, lucky I'm not an MP!! :)

I mean I can imagine a situation where they force Corbyn to get the noms and enough no-confidence PLP voters are self-aware enough to realise what a fuckup it'd be to keep him out, so they nominate him anyway. It'd only need 11 out of 140ish right?

172 in fact

he needs 51 nominations from either Lab MPs or MEPs, and afaict there are only about a dozen or so who actually want him to be leader. but yes, I think that he could well end up getting enough nominations anyway due to the pressure on MPs from their local parties, fear of splitting the party and recognition that a leader elected without Corbyn on the ballot would be seen as lacking legitimacy.

A few commenters here in need of a bracing fiery death

https://twitter.com/GuardianHeather/status/752902183012753408

i'm not too sure that there's any point expecting honour or basic political intelligence from these fuckers tbh

real somewhere that the number of nominations needed for a leadership contest where there is no incumbent is only 15% of the PLP and MEPs, rather than the 20% needed when the election is a challenge against an incumbent leader, so theoretically Corbyn could stand down as leader and then would need fewer nominations. which seems farcical, but is in keeping with the general slapstick nature of the last few weeks

A few commenters here in need of a bracing fiery death

Starting with all these cunts going on about "new, kinder politics" all the fucking time

Is there any possibility that Eagle is targeting herself as some kind of machiavellian move that seems a little too obvious.
Playing the victim does seem one tactic, but does is it one electable?

doubt it, there's enough understandably enraged people, ne'er-do-wells and idiots to go around

xp top tip - when a female public figure is claiming harassment, the burden of proof is really really far on the side of those claiming she's making it up.

omg

https://twitter.com/MichaelLCrick/status/752915337939718144

young passionate supporter of neolib economics

Wonder if the rallies Angela has will bring the same numbers in as Jeremy's short notice meetings did?

ppl suggesting that the Corbyn lookalike thing is a set up, I was hoping that it was just some hapless bearded gentleman who happened to walk past and had no idea was going on

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CnLkyboWAAAAtfb.jpg

The Jamie Vardy lookalike is on the phone now giving him tips.

The Vardy lookalike has been getting abuse since Norwexit

Corbyn on the ballot!

poor Angela Eagle

So does that mean that Eagle is going to go by what she said earlier?
THough i have just heard that Owen Smith is also on. So not sure what that will mean.

I mean it's despicable that this was even in question enough that people should have to feel relieved about this outcome but

hahahaha

My guess is there'll be loads of them on the ballot paper and they'll all get out of the way for whoever ends up polling get closest to Corbyn.

Or they could all dumbly run up against each other and split the vote again, who even knows.

Can't actually remember the last time I heard some good news in politics, but otoh what a bag of arses they all look

stoked for the Dan Jarvis campaign where the leaflets just have the words "army man" in different fonts and sizes at random intervals

"It's a man's life in the Parliamentary Labour Party."

I paid a pound

Their next cunning plan will be to borrow a few million off Murdoch and pay a click farm to give Eagle 200000 fake Labour members :p

As much as I immensely dislike what the likes of Eagle represent and how they conduct themselves, I do almost genuinely feel sorry for her now.

Nobody who registered in the last six months will be allowed to vote, according to the BBC - so whatever recruitment push Saving Labour were going for clearly didn't work. It's also being reported that the £3 registered supporters need to pay £25 to vote this time.

fucking ponzi scheme!

I'd pay the £25, but ffs!

Seems bizarre that you can't vote if you became a member five months ago but can if you register to pay £25 as a non-member in the two-day window they're opening up.

I want my pound back

people who joined since Feb would be able to vote if they pay the £25 supporter fee, I guess? it does seem silly

It seems like they do actually have a plan after all.

He's going to walk it.

Labour party sure getting creative in response to threats to its trade union funding.

I don't even know if i will be able to vote. As a low-down scratter member I only pay them £1.96 a month - they were asking me for more and I respectfully explained I've not even had a holiday for 4 years so get fucked!

£25 fee is higher than the annual membership rate under-27s, trade unionists and those who are unemployed retired or work fewer than 16 hours a week: https://join.labour.org.uk/

difficult to see how the higher fee doesn't totally negate the point of the registered supporter scheme, I guess it would have been impossible for them to get rid of it all together? or figure that anti-Corbyn types who are willing to sign up to vote against him have more disposable income

xp to calzino

labour.org seems to have been overwhelmed!

Trying to rig the voting system towards your own dastardly end was what got them into this mess:p How much can Corbyn do to challenge these changes?not much I'd guess.

Was the guy who was on BBC News channel saying that Corbyn was killing the Labour party after the announcement of him being on the ballot was announced really saying that the Unions were too?
That's how I heard it as I was working away on the computer. But can't tell if that could be real.

Most reportage of Corbyn on the beeb ranges from sneering contempt to barely disguised hatred.

do you mean this John McTernan interview? it's quite, um, something

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IBqJlG7CL0

Yeah I think so.

don't mind the Labour Party dying if it means douchebags like McTernan have to go and do something else instead

Lol blaming Corbyn for brexit is something alright!

🎶 I paid 25 quid into the Halifax, just to watch a party die 🎶

apologies to Johnny Cash

still shd have had a "losing team gets the fuck out of the party" clause

Not totally sure if me asking my union branch to switch my subs to the Labour affiliated fund last week was too little too late out here

Even by Labour's recent history of giving shambles a good name, today's meeting of the ruling NEC takes the biscuit.

Because at the end of the meeting, after a couple of pro-Corbyn members had left, and Corbyn himself had gone, a vote was taken on a motion not on the agenda, to exclude from the leadership vote anyone who joined the party in the past six months. So the 130,000 who signed up since Brexit, most of whom are thought to be Corbyn supporters, will be unable to vote.

Now whatever you think of Corbyn, this looks and smells like gerrymandering by his opponents.

Corbyn will definitely attempt to get the vote over-turned. And he may resort to the law, since Labour's website made clear that membership bought a vote.
As for those who joined since January, they will be revolting.

That said, if anyone wants to take part in the election, they now have two days to pay £25 and become a registered supporter.
Which is the first example of the much feared post-Brexit inflation, since till today it cost just £3 to be such a voting supporter.

Robert Peston on Facebook.

Tempted to join BAME Labour for £5, which is apparently one of the cheaper ways to vote, but a large part of me just wants this whole mess to be over with. If this attempt doesn't work, they'll keep trying every nine months until one does.

lots of ppl on twitter seem to think that joining a union should be enough to get a vote

being in an affiliated union no longer automatically gets you a vote, right? you have to opt in as a supporter?

yeah, there's some box to check about political fund contributions

if you join Labour as an affiliated union member they're then meant to contact your union to verify that you've opted in

This will no doubt be done smoothly and efficiently in the coming weeks

Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.

What's the vote of no confidence in Eagle thing happening on the 22nd from Wallasey? Is that right? There was something on Newsnight before they interviewed her. Think that was the right date.

Full membership meeting for Wallasey branch July 22nd to vote on no confidence following expressed wish from membership that she support Corbyn. Doesn't that undermine her mandate?
I don't think she came off that Newsnight interview that well either.

In theory they can deselect her as their MP which means someone else would stand in their seat at the next election but doesn't mean that she'd go immediately.

It looks like Owen Smith is going to throw his hat into the ring today as well so she's doubly doomed.

Heh, Corbyn must feel a bit like Auric Goldfinger when James Bond is pleading for his life before his balls get fried by a laser: "If I don't report back, 008 replaces me!" "Then I trust he will be more successful."

https://s32.postimg.org/57vugz7lx/BAME.jpg

Hmmm.

Excluding anyone who registered in the last six months is as likely to favour Corbyn as anything else, as it also excludes people who signed up specifically to vote against him.

The £25 thing is bullshit. Either have the supporters vote or don't, but don't change the rules half way through.

Excellent inclusivity from the party of the poor and disadvantaged though.

say No to democracy

So, Corby wins this poll, overwhelmingly.

Then again, we are young people, and cool.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQPQxwK_WlIu8o--CKHxE4cnSVZM-1TrXIpSljnRdMKLgf4sDspUQ

https://medium.com/@TenPercent/message-to-disabled-people-regarding-owen-smith-mps-leadership-bid-2de1eda0fd8d#.vfxbjg4o6

On Saturday 7th March 2015 I attended a Labour meeting in Pontypridd at which the guest speaker was Owen Smith MP, then shadow secretary of state for Wales. When questions were invited from the floor, I asked Mr Smith why, given that the Work Capability Assessment (WCA) has been responsible for a great many more deaths than the Bedroom Tax, Labour had pledged to scrap the Bedroom Tax but had said nothing about pledging to scrap the WCA. Mr Smith replied that Labour could not pledge to scrap the WCA because this would make Labour appear weak on benefits in the eyes of the media and compromise Labour’s general-election chances.

I posted this on Facebook and a journalist took it up and posted the story online. Subsequently the journalist was threatened with legal action by Mr Smith if he did not take the story down. I was very intimidated by the prospect of defending myself in court, and I had no money for a legal defence. In addition my Labour colleagues were terribly keen to maintain good relations with Mr Smith and would probably have backed Mr Smith and not me if it came to a court case (one of them had even contacted the journalist and briefed against me). So I asked the journalist to pull the story and I deleted references to it on Facebook.

I am publicising this incident now because I am very concerned about Mr Smith’s attitude toward disabled people and particularly to his views that the deaths of disabled people are less important than Labour’s “tough on benefits” standing in the right wing press. If he threatens me with legal action again it will be incredibly stressful and will probably exacerbate my disability-related ill-health. But I believe it is important that Mr Smith’s attitudes to the WCA and to disability rights (and freedom of speech!) be robustly challenged if he stands for the Labour leadership. And because we should be able to discuss things that profoundly impact on us, like the WCA, without being intimidated into silence by threats of legal action. I am happy to provide more details to journalists who can contact me at lvanzy✧✧✧@gm✧✧✧.c✧✧’

Prior to standing for election Owen Smith worked as a lobbyist for drugs firm Pfizer. During that time, Owen Smith called for more involvement of such private firms in the NHS. “We believe that choice is a good thing and that patients and healthcare professionals should be at the heart of developing the agenda,” he said on behalf of the firm.

In 2006 when there was a motion in Parliament calling for Pfizer to have less of a stranglehold on the NHS, Owen Smith said: “We believe (the early day motion) to be based on inaccurate information provided by wholesalers that we have not chosen to partner with.”

Asked to explain why he sought public office whilst earning a six-figure sum from Pfizer, Owen Smith said Pfizer were “extremely supportive” of him seeking to enter Parliament. Speaking about the early-day motion to reduce the involvement of Pfizer in the NHS, Owen Smith added: “We (he and Pfizer) feel that their (other wholesalers’) campaign to mobilise opposition to our proposals is entirely motivated by commercial self-interest.“

http://i3.walesonline.co.uk/incoming/article10827053.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/Owen2.jpg

xp Goes without saying that if you're dying of cancer, you don't want options, you want solutions.

Just what Labour (and the electorate) needs right now, a morally bankrupt anti-NHS candidate who bullies disabled people. Good media skills though, which is very important to some people.

I've been trying to consolidate Corbynmania vs the left anti-Corbyn argument in my mind over the last few weeks, and this article https://afterlabour.org/2016/07/12/corbyn-and-the-new-political-puritans/ has helped somewhat.
strikes me that rather than this conflict being about Corbynites vs Blairites, it's more an argument between an under-represented left who want to use the Labour platform to redress the nation vs those who wish to preserve the Labour party as a way of wresting power away from the Tories.

The first bunch are accused of spoiling the party, and the chances of Labour ever beating the Tories, with ham-fisted radicalism, naive idealism, and a stubbornness that transcends any reasonable approach to workable politics. The second bunch are seen as pussy-whipped panderers; sellouts; conservatives in all but name, who are afraid of any sort of shake-up to the establishment

So - is an 80s-style split within the Labour party necessary at this stage? It strikes me that there needs to be an accessible leftwing/socialist option on the polling cards that isn't tied to the trappings of old-fashioned bolshevism or things like the Socialist Workers Party. But: this has happened before and we're in danger of going full circle once again while the Tories continue to hold more and more power over the iron throne. And where would that leave Labour if they're left to occupy a space that just makes them look like a rival gang with the same interests as the Tories?

Margaret Hodge won't have helped on Today this morning, she directly accused Corbyn of not being interested in making anything better but just wanting power for power's sake. She also dredged up "beginning to feel like the 80s when you had lefties like Ken Livingston positions of power."

Can you imagine, even the most moderate and 'one nation' minded tory, speaking about Mrs Thatcher in that sort of way?

also lol the eighties like 2008 then

Corbyn just waking up one day after decades as an MP and thinking "POWERRRRRRR".

There are many reasons why Hodge was given the telephone extension 666 when the new numbers were assigned a couple of years ago.

It looks like LGBT Labour and Scientists For Labour have also suspended new applications, in addition to BAME Labour.

this is a truly heroic struggle to stop large numbers of people taking an interest in the political process

Lots of crowing about cutting 180k people out of voting atm. Possibly less when they realise they'll probably have to refund them. The Tories have just said they'll pay back anyone who joined them recently and thought they'd get to vote on the leader.

180k people joining unions to vote would not be a terrible outcome, tbh.

The NEC also decided to suspend all CLP meetings so the idea of Eagle being deselected is off the table until after the ballot.

guess I'll have to go to momentum meetings instead

Wonder what's going to happen isn't it going to be doubly depressing for someone to lose the election and then find out that they've been deselected straight afterwards?

they'll end up forming SDP 2.0 when they don't get their way over this

From the point of view of a country with multiple popular parties, it always seems a bit baffling to look at places with an (effective) two-party system... How can they manage to stay unified while still attempting to represent the enormous variety of opinions among their voters (or at least giving the illusion of doing that)? You'd think crisis like the one you're having now would be far more common?

well for the last 20 years both of the main parties have had indistinguishable economic policies, so that's helped

the crisis we're having now is only an overt period in a decades-long crisis i.e. the "battle for centre ground" which has bubbled under with periods of seeming stability and e.g. the "party unity" of labour during blair and brown due entirely to its incumbency and essential complacency

But shouldn't the Tories be going through similar crisis? (Or are they?) How can they give both the rah-rah xenophile "true" conservatives and the neoliberal urban business class what they want?

It was that split which lead to the referendum being called in the first place.

The Tories had a brief but brutal leadership crisis after Brexit but have pulled together swiftly and ruthlessly under Theresa May. They are very good at that kind of thing, generally being far more concerned about the survival and strength of the party than ideology.

xpost

Okay, I get it... But wouldn't splitting into separate parties be the obvious solution for both Tories and Labour? Or are they to afraid of what they will loose to see the benefit of what they might gain with such a move?

IIRC you guys also have a winner-takes-it-all voting system, like the Americans? I guess that's what discourages a proper multi-party system from taking form?

(xpost)

The possibility for mass defections to the Lib Dems is surely there but there's no way that would play well in Brexit constituencies.

they are they just seem to be holding it together currently - in order to cling onto power. v broadly speaking there's a feeling that the parlimentary labour party are "too right wing" for the membership the conservatives are "too left wing" for theirs. theresa may believe it or not represents the liberal side of things while her final rival for leadership was to the rah-rah side of things which is why she had to drop out before it got to a membership vote.

xposts

Or are they to afraid of what they will loose to see the benefit of what they might gain with such a move?

It'll never happen with the Tories, they are incredibly tribal. It looks fairly likely it'll happen soon for Labour, it already did in the 80s which is why we now have the Liberal Democrats, the perrenially underachieving third major party.

The whole Cameron project has been the grassroots and a huge chunk of MPs voting for someone they actively disliked on the basis that he was electable. That need to cater to both wings has wrecked the country and means he'll go down as the worst post-war PM if things unravel like it seems they're going to.

May is widely distrusted by centrists (as illiberal) and by the hard right (as not illiberal enough, and too pro-Europe). She has been able to keep a cap on it so far but it has literally been three days and when the negotiations on EU membership start in earnest she'll face similar problems.

The parties would probably struggle to survive in a split. The Tories would either have political donations but no grass roots, Labour would either have no business support or members / unions behind them.

Ah, okay I didn't actually know the history of the Liberal Democrats... I thought they were formed to represent that liberal urban business class I mentioned (the ones for whom Tories are too socially conservative), not as a splinter group from Labour.

(xpost)

That's effectively what they became, but again there was a huge fault line down the middle of the party between those who wanted to be a left-ish party and fiscal conservatives who also happened to be social liberals. The latter won.

The Tories would either have political donations but no grass roots, Labour would either have no business support or members / unions behind them.

So the state in UK doesn't support parties monetarily? In here I think that's one of the main reasons why some parties with an (at least initally) weak economic backing have managed to thrive.

Though there was a good chunk of time in the 00s when the Lib Dems were to the left of Labour on most issues.

xpost

That's effectively what they became, but again there was a huge fault line down the middle of the party between those who wanted to be a left-ish party and fiscal conservatives who also happened to be social liberals. The latter won.

Wouldn't there be support for a proper, big left-wing party in the UK then? I've always thought there are a lot left-leaning people living there.

They are a mix of splinter Labour and the classical Liberal Party, which was formerly a party of government but declined after WW2.

I mean, I get that it's these people who are supporting Corbyn now, but wouldn't it make more sense to form a new, properly left-wing party instead of trying to salvage an old one that clearly doesn't want to make that move?

(xpost)

So the state in UK doesn't support parties monetarily? In here I think that's one of the main reasons why some parties with an (at least initally) weak economic backing have managed to thrive.

It does but not to an extent that covers the kind of party machines both run and associated advertising / marketing costs. Labour were in about £25m of debt after the 2005 election.

there is state money for parties but not the big bucks that modern political activities and campaigning are able to devour

some people have characterised this whole labour debacle as a battle over the labour brand and that's more or less what it is when it comes down to it

Wouldn't there be support for a proper, big left-wing party in the UK then? I've always thought there are a lot left-leaning people living there.

Not so sure about that.

Yep.

I mean, I get that it's these people who are supporting Corbyn now, but wouldn't it make more sense to form a new, properly left-wing party instead of trying to salvage an old one that clearly doesn't want to make that move?

The electoral system in the UK doesn't work in favour of smaller parties. UKIP got 12.6% of the vote at the last election and got one MP out of a possible six hundred and fifty something - and he started out as a Conservative. A breakaway Socialist party would probably only work out under PR.

Neither side wants to lose 'Labour' as a name though - it has a long history and people are tribal too.

Presumably there wasa time when Labour was just needing to make its initial name. It wasa party that was formed for the first time sometime in the early to mid 20th century. Or did it tie in with more people getting the vote than previously anyway?

Possibly should know more about Labour Party history, but do know taht vaguery. Not sure if there is much of a gap between the working class getting the vote and the formation of the party which was presumably initially to represent them and sympathetic leaning voters. Which seems to be a long way from what it is now or what parts of it want to be but I'm assuming Corbyn is trying to return to.

So echoing what Tuomas is saying, what is to prevent a broad left wing party from forming outside of infighting between leftist factions. Also that the name Labour itself has a weight to it now that it would take any new party an age to build to.
& that it would probably need some momentum already gathering to brig the broad left wing to join.

I know taht the initial 2 parties were the Whigs and the Tories which evolved into the Liberal party and the Conservatives. Not sure exactly when LIberal Party shrunk out of the main running. I think they were already becoming the 3rd party as I grew up. My mother used to vote for them is all that I remember.
Did they evolve into Lib Dem or is that a totally different party?

Not sure that the Labour Party has been anything more than the Stop-The-Tories party my entire adult life.

bingo

the slow-down-the-tories-somewhat party

very briefly, because i'm on holiday and i can't be arsed: the Labour Party from its inception has been a coalition of different interests, even little sub-parties within it: the Trade Union movement, middle class liberals like the Fabians, more left wing or "true" socialists crossing working/middle class boundaries to a large extent, "Christian socialists" and a bunch i'm probably forgetting. right-leaning working class members and "hard" left middle class theorists. a genuinely broad church that has been at war with itself from day 1. anybody who wants to write a broad narrative tradition for the party has to strain a lot if they want to pretend there's "consistency".

this is a battle for the brand, and i don't think the brand has much value in it, because the importance (notional importance?) of the party was bringing together all those disparate elements, however uneasily. Before 1979, there was a very loose consensus that the party favoured economic policies of redistribution and restructuring to try to somehow democratise the workings of the state. post-Thatcher, post monetarism, post the new orthodoxy, that consensus is dead and not coming back.

and i suspect there's no new broad-based left-ish party coming down the tracks because a) the First Past the Post system works against it, but mainly b) professional politicians are mostly navel-gazing arseholes

to add to the Owen Smith stuff above, Michael Crick linked to this 2006 article wherein Owen gives some unfortunate quotes on the Iraq war, private sector involvement in the NHS and PFI.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/owen-smith-opens-up-by-election-2338066

(he also says that local parties should be able to veto all-women shortlists, the context of this is an argument that all-women shortlists were being used selectively to stop local parties selecting candidates the central party didn't like, but this may still be a bad look for him considering that it seems like "Labour is overdue a female leader" is going to be one of the big arguments Eagle's backers use to make the case that Smith should be the anti-Corbyn candidate to stand down)

I mean, this looks like it could have been put together by the Corbyn campaign, it's pefect

Owen Smith on...

The Iraq War
"We are making significant inroads in improving what is happening in Iraq.

"I thought at the time the tradition of the Labour Party and the tradition of left-wing engagement to remove dictators was a noble, valuable tradition, and one that in South Wales, from the Spanish Civil War onwards, we have recognised and played a part in."

He didn't know whether he would have voted against the war, as the previous MP Llew Smith did.

The involvement of the private sector in the NHS
"Where they can bring good ideas, where they can bring valuable services that the NHS is not able to deliver, and where they can work alongside but subservient to the NHS and without diminishing in any respect the public service ethos of the NHS, then I think that's fine. I think if their involvement means in any way, shape or form the break up of the NHS, then I'm not a fan of it, but I don't think it does."

On PFI (Private Finance Initiative) schemes, etc
"We've had PFI in Wales, we've had a hospital built down in Baglan through PFI. If PFI works, then let's do it. What people want to see are more hospitals, better services.

"City academies in certain parts of inner city Britain, where schools were failing, where children were not being well served, have made great inroads.

"I'm not someone, frankly, who gets terribly wound up about some of the ideological nuances that get read into some of these things, and I think sometimes they are totally overblown."

Does Smith's history with Pfitzer have any effect on him now?

I'm sure he made plenty of money out of it.

i'm sure it gives him a thorough understanding of the needs of today's pharmaceutical industry should he be called to vote on any related issues

hard to say whether his lax perspective on the nhs as a vehicle for private profit as long as it stops short of precipitating its actual "break up" whatever that means is an effect of his involvement with one of the world's largest drug companies but...who knows eh?

I think the quote above is 10 years old so wondering if he's saying anything along the same lines now.

& I thought people were saying he was a leftist which sounds odd if he's in bed with big pharmaceutical business.

In the current climate Thatcher would probably be considered soft left.

smiths getting more of a battering than eagles took. finally ilm

lol mangled syntax

not sure if enough ppl remember Absolutely for this to have legs as a meme, but lol anyway

https://twitter.com/unklerupert/status/753221683742400512

Lol at this 'clean campaign pledge'. Publicly asking Corbyn to sign something to say that he takes responsibility for everyone on Twitter? So when some idiot tweets abuse at a Lab MP and Corbyn fails to... what? Have them put in the stocks? The party can cry about how he didn't stick to their very serious and important pledge. Including a line 'I promise to unite at the end of the contest to fight the Tories' is surely a major provocation too?

Why are these people so bad and terrible?

It's exactly what May did to Leadsom.

It was interesting to see that she could only rustle up 17 MPs for the photo op, though.

I know taht the initial 2 parties were the Whigs and the Tories which evolved into the Liberal party and the Conservatives. Not sure exactly when LIberal Party shrunk out of the main running. I think they were already becoming the 3rd party as I grew up. My mother used to vote for them is all that I remember.
Did they evolve into Lib Dem or is that a totally different party?

― Stevolende, Wednesday, 13 July 2016 13:09 (5 hours ago)

I'm no expert, but broadly speaking it was a two-party system (Tories v Liberals) before the First World War and was a two-party system after the Second World War (Tories and Labour), with the 1920s and 1930s seeing a lot of instability but the end result was that the Liberals were finished as a major force. They clung on to a very small number of seats in a few areas, but were never even remotely likely to come to power. Some people on the right of the Labour Party split off to form the SDP in the early 80s. They made an electoral pact with the Liberals not to stand against each other. For most of the 80s they had an awkward alliance with 'The Two Davids' as their leaders, before eventually merging into the SLD (which then became the Lib Dems).

Owen Smith just promised a second referendum. The chance of him being able to deliver one is basically zero but that's actually quite a smart move.

it seems weird that Smith has chosen the day that May becomes PM and announces her cabinet to launch his leadership bid (I know it was only Monday that Leadsom dropped out - I guess he figured that if he put it back then Eagle would have the chance to steal a march on him?)

i'm not sure that it's "smart" per se but by gum at least it's a policy

As a vote winning gimmick it might just work.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/13/owen-smith-to-offer-referendum-on-brexit-deal-if-elected-labour-leader

Smith, whose entry into the race for party leader threatens to derail the hopes of Angela Eagle, who first triggered the contest, said it was clear people wanted both access to the single market and controls on immigration.

But, he added, the public wanted to know what deal would be struck, adding: “And then we should give them another chance. That does mean a second referendum or a general election when the terms are clear. The Labour government should be committing to that.”

isn't the general consensus that these two things are mutually exclusive?

Trying to set himself out as a unifying figure with soft-left politics, Smith accused Labour MPs on the left and right of his party of being fatalistic about a split.

more like soft-in-the-head left, amirite

how do you get to self-identify as Left if you don't give a fuck about contesting the existing economic order?

soft-left is a feeling, a squooshy, cuddly feeling

also i was joking when i said "go to the country and offer a second referendum but with harder questions"

am I right in thinking that "soft-left" as an appellation was first applied to Kinnock and the ppl around him who abstained when Tony Benn challenged Healy for the deputy leadership in 1981, and then more generally to the group supporting Kinnock's long slow project of divesting Labour of any identifiably left-wing policies, ending with Blair becoming leader? it seems an odd banner to try and rally people under.

also i was joking when i said "go to the country and offer a second referendum but with harder questions"

― PLPeni (Noodle Vague)

now that's an interesting idea- instead of making people pass a poll test before they vote, make a poll test part of the vote and tabulate the answers. if you're trying to get rid of democracy (which it seems like a lot of people are), that certainly could be of some assistance.

I'm sure that this has been written about many times, but it's interesting that most of the senior figures in New Labour started off on the left of the party, to the point that the nominal "soft-left" faction was apparently frustrated with John Smith's lack of enthusiasm for "modernising" reforms despite him coming from the old right of the party

would anyone who voted in this poll have changed their vote if it had been Corbyn vs Owen Smith rather than Corbyn vs Eagle?

soft lads more like

Dunno, should we do another one?

FYI I was on my phone and clicked the Eagle option by mistake so she only has one vote.

lol, she really can't catch a break

FYI I was on my phone and clicked the Eagle option by mistake so she only has one vote.

― Matt DC, Thursday, 14 July 2016 09:11 (38 minutes ago) Permalink

misogynistic bullying imo. On your 'bro'ne more like.

The new Labour rules dictate that anyone who applies to vote who has posted on social media suggesting a Labour MP is 'scum', 'a traitor' or 'a scab' will be barred from voting.

lol that's me gone

plenty of corbyn is scum social media posts I trust a thorough search will be performed

i was gonna say they realise this is unworkable, but of course it will turn out to be workable when it suits

also they should produce a glossary of unacceptable words to describe Blairites

they did this last leadership election tho - tried to keep anybody who'd ever used words like socialism or Marx or illegal war of aggression off the ballot

The NEC has also decided that the 6 month freeze also applies to unions and affiliates so the UNITE effort to sign people up for £2, for example, has been stymied.

infuriating

does unite have recourse to stop this beyond half-heartedly threatening to take their money elsewhere entirely? Saw tweet indicating that Unison and GMB agreed with it and werent contesting it but so much unsourced horseshit coming out about all of this lately it's hard to know how mad to be at them

We said if you joined you could vote for party leader; we didn't say when or which one

they will have to refund a lot of people, surely

Both sides obviously don't believe the other side should exist within the same party as them so a split looks like the only long-term workable option. Otherwise this is going to repeat itself time and time again.

corbyn backed by the unions and with a strong base of support will surely keep the name, and I would think the labour right with their mantra of electability would be aware that setting up a new party had a high chance of proving to be suicide, so I can imagine this battle going on for a long time, especially while it's close and there are still a lot of people on the fence to win over

That broken window at Eagle's constituency office a closer look
http://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=167&v=ppnKHmuVA1s
i.e. that wasn't her office window it's on a shared stairwell so looks mor elikely to have been an attempted burglary.
But there may be less mileage in that.

https://s32.postimg.org/syyiw0q85/Cnp1_EQj_XEAAv_Rwq.jpg

Seems an interesting angle to lead with if you're running against LGBT candidate.

https://s32.postimg.org/syyiw0q85/Cnp1_EQj_XEAAv_Rwq.jpg

it's because he can't say "I'm working class" or "I'm Labour"

and he so desperately wants to appeal on those tickets

It reads as a hamfisted play for Everybloke status but if he couldn't foresee how that might be spun given the situation then he's pretty naive.

Didn't he recently notice how a similar strategy worked so well for Leadsom? Not only incompetent but also completely abhorrent.

I am going to try and pay the £25 at 5.00 pm, if it contributes towards stopping this this piece of shit it will be a bargain.

whoever said about him looking like Shadwell is not wrong tho

just an everyday normal guy who made £80k as a lobbyist for the pharmaceutical industry

"I'm normal," says Owen Smith to lady he's just sat down next to on bus.

"I have a wife and children. I love macroeconomics."

"Feel my muscles, go on."

Even if he didn't intend it as a dog-whistle, he's now given two interviews in two days that have required further explanation after the fact. That's quite a strike rate so far.

"I can go on the bus on my own."

"i want a world without nuclear weapons altogether, but i don't think we hasten that by divesting," he adds, his eyes rolling slightly in their sockets

He's rolling his eyes as he's speaking himself. I thought that eye rolling was on teh list of vetoed behaviour taht's circulating various CLPs.

"i too enjoy a schooner of wine at the end of a hard day's completion of tasks. my tentacles are like yours, made of human flesh and blood..."

Sounds like the registering to vote has been a major pain. Large amounts of people trying to get through at the same time and overloading the thing. Kind of predictable really.

Also looks like they did succeed in allowing people to donate membership fees or alternatively get fee loans from related organisations.

Just heard Jeremy talking about why he's voting against Trident on BBC News live from the House of Commons. Though he has given his party the free vote.

The Guardian understands that meetings are under way between the teams of Smith and Eagle, with some urging them to consider a joint ticket in which one runs as a shadow chancellor to the other as leader

That worked really well last time someone tried that.

When you register they ask your Facebook/Twitter ID and I'm not on either so I don't know how that is going to work out. Also it states you can only pay with credit card featuring your own address, all very classy and democratic.

Shit, I joined well before January so I'm not sure if needed to become a registered member.

I thought this £25 still only made you a supporter not a full member. Not sure how you go about becoming a full member.
But it's naff anyway, wonder what the next attempt at blocking party democracy will be.

A member who has joined post 12 Jan can vote, but only as a £25 supporter.

I joined pre 12th Jan, but I thought I still had to become a registered supporter to vote in the leadership election. I will be phoning them tomorrow for my money back!

http://jvmarketinggroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/XOWii-mlm-business.jpg

PLP = Pitiful Liberal Ponzi

lol 'liberal'

I still have always liked Eagle, which is why I find all of this disappointing. Smith can go fuck himself.

There are decent people making questionable decisions on every side here bar Tory Labour tbf

I am kicking myself for giving them that £25 despite being eligible to vote. Better not open any spam emails since I became such an easy mark.

do registered supporters get 25£ off subsequent membership fees?

Do we accept the narrative that Corbyn is "a decent bloke who is unelectable as a Prime Minister"?

And is there really no-one who is left-wing, decent and charismatic enough to stand a chance of winning an election?

(I assume Smith/Eagle are *charismatic* to a degree, to have got where they have got to ... but they don't make me think that May isn't going to win the next election with barely any effort).

can't stop laughing at this

@iankatz1000
Top fact about @OwenSmith_MP, man who cd be Lab leader: as young BBC producer asked to get police comment on story, he called 999 #newsnight

I feel like some switch has flipped and pretty much all politicians have become anachronistic overnight, absurdities suited to some alien age

xp
tbf he was probably repeatedly trying to press the speed dial button to daddy.

As it stands, Corbyn can't even form a functioning opposition let alone win an election. The fact that *everyone knows that* and yet he still overwhelming favourite to beat whichever of Smith or Eagle remains in the race suggests that something else is going on here.

When he wins, Labour MPs will finally need to pull their heads out of their arses and address the bigger issue, namely the complete atrophying of trust between a majority of Labour members and their MPs. The party will continue to cling to Corbyn like a life raft until someone can convince the party that they aren't going to pull some shit like abstaining on the welfare bill again.

The approach - essentially insulting Corbyn supporters as cultists, entryists, fatasists, Trots, misogynists, etc rather than trying to make any kind of case for them to reconsider their support - has shown how little they have in the cupboard other than 'electability' which nobody really believes either.

correct

I assume a lot of Corbyn's following is like me: not buying into any personality cult (lol) but implacably opposed to virtually everybody who's lined up against him in politics or media

^^^

sure they make themselves look more and more like what they are, but you get the feeling they'd break the party up rather than allow it to fall into the hands of dangerous lefties anyway

― the lion tweets tonight (Noodle Vague), Wednesday, 12 August 2015 21:35 (11 months ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

gosh I was otm a lot last year

The idea that people have been sucked into a leftist cult by the charismatic Corbyn is quite hilarious. If the Labour Right were any good they would have no problem drumming up a 100000 "entryist" supporters of their own, if there isn't that tiny number willing to get behind them than their constant talk of electoral credibility is nonsense.

I'd vote for anyone that could convince me they were socialist. Other than that I have no unusual affection for Corbyn, and there are lots of failings on his part. I don't really see much of a personality cult to his supporters, but I might interact with different sections of his support than others.

My feeling is that people support Corbyn because neo-Labour wouldn't be arsed with actually representing the left/workers and would use his resignation/defeat to tell members and the electorate that winning is about tacking to the centre.

I assume a lot of Corbyn's following is like me: not buying into any personality cult (lol) but implacably opposed to virtually everybody who's lined up against him in politics or media

― PLPeni (Noodle Vague), Tuesday, 19 July 2016 10:29 (2 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

p much

Radio 4 says Eagle's about to make a statement, likely to be a withdrawal

the eagle has crash-landed

never really took off tbh

failed to cash in on this year's Eddie the Eagle mania

Failed, to cash in on this year's Eddie the eagle mania

thanks, better

http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l298/Caldoria/Animated%20graphics%20interchange%20format%20images/CryingEagle.gif

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roPQ_M3yJTA

This is like when the Boo Radleys split up. My hometown can shuffle off back into obscurity again now.

What a disaster for manufacturers of all-pink Union Jacks.

Labour Party: still hating women in 2016

I much prefer Eagle to Smith.

To me it is like choosing between standing on cat-shit or dog-shit, but Smith is much more vile.

Sure; it wasn't meant as an endorsement of Eagle.

of course, I know you meant as a person rather than as a politician.

http://home.bt.com/images/labour-leadership-contender-owen-smith-would-renationalise-the-railways-tomorrow-136407410761610401-160717230029.jpg

i like a man who is prepared to roll his sleeves up and point a lot at imaginary things. he's very dynamic, don't you know?

oh that's straight out of the Blair playbook. not sure about the moustachioed woman on his left tho

They've got a hundred and however many MPs to choose from, it's genuinely astonishing to me they've settled on one this mediocre.

hey there's time for some more comedy candidates yet

what the PLP is doing, i just can't

has there ever been an example of this sort of party undermining, cutting one's nose off to spite one's face? ever?

i mean SURELY the politically expedient grown-up thing to do would be to thrash this out privately and publicly stand together apart from a few free votes "of conscience". i mean even by their own standards of craven self-interest this is completely self-defeating?

Corbyn is too popular to be removed through normal channels. At least, for now. They need to present the party as publicly on the verge of splitting to pressurise soft Corbyn supporters into voting for a 'unity' candidate. It has to be messy and melodramatic or it won't have a hope of working. The interesting question isn't so much the means but the timing.

Popular / stubborn. The plan was clearly for him to resign quietly.

it's incredible that labour were handed one of the biggest open goals in recent political history with the fallout from Brexit and they've still managed to smash he ball not just over the crossbar but right out of the stadium

brian

When he wins, Labour MPs will finally need to pull their heads out of their arses and address the bigger issue, namely the complete atrophying of trust between a majority of Labour members and their MPs.

They couldn't even organise a coup properly, and I can't see them doing this. Too many years of mutual contempt.

Corbyn and team have to prepare the ground for a split.

Piece today is a preview: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/19/the-fight-for-labours-soul-what-the-partys-brutal-1981-split-means-today

A split does no one any favours other than the Tories really. I just can't see any wing of the party going for it, Corbyn is a 70 year old man, he isn't going to be around forever, and the landscape can change very quickly indeed.

He's 67! I don't see there being a split either.

split isn't in anyone's interests bar the tories and scottish nationalists

youd have labour safe seats going to the tories with the vote-splitting of the core labour vote from corbyn's continuity labour vs sdp2 vs ukip

Landfill indie putting its queer shoulder to the wheel: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/19/liberals-celebrities-and-eu-supporters-set-up-progressive-movement?CMP=twt_gu

"The initiative has the support of Jonathon Porritt, the environmentalist, Caroline Criado-Perez, the feminist writer, and Luke Pritchard from the band Kooks, as a space for people who want a voice for openness and tolerance."

I think that Beckett piece is correct in saying they moved too fast for Corbyn, before he even had a chance too fail. Blaming him for Brexit when his figures were the same as Sturgeon's wasn't too smart either.

Chuka was openly ridiculing Corbyn on R4 to the amusement of IDS, this was the day before the referendum and he was allegedly on the programme to give reasoned arguments for Remain - which by the way he didn't do very well and was more into some IDS bantz. For me these people can go form Continuity Labour, even if it means 2 more terms of Tories.

^ Yeah, this is kind of what I really struggle with.

I can get that anyone might think "Corbyn will never win a general election." But getting rid of him seems to be so much more important to members of his own party than anything.

Perhaps I am naïve.

Corbyn isn't going to be around for ever, but if he wins he could be around for 2-3 years and he'll introduce further changes - or certainly press hard. Can the rest of these idiots really put up with that? It only helps the Tories but the coup was awful timing (as Calzino and Beckett and many others say), they couldn't bide their time post-Brexit vote and milk Cameron's resignation. Why would they wait for a turn of events to weaken the trust between Corbyn and the membership. They might be lucky but its a big if.

I don't see the Tories being all nice and united either btw. Gideon was meant to be PM-in-waiting not too long ago. They just got rid of the PM after a year 'governing' in a (albeit tiny) majority.

These idiots have done plenty to help the Tories already. Not only Post-Brexit but also over the non-debate around Trident yesterday. Now off to the wilderness of a weak challenge to the leadership. This will only strenghten the bonds between the membership and Corbyn's team, give a further boost to Momentum, and of course even before the changes there was a healthy boost to the membership. Incredible idiocy.

not sure about the moustachioed woman on his left tho

that's no ordinary moustachioed woman - that's THE MILIFAN

lol and i've just realised looking back at that picture, he obviously said "round up some young people for me"

god imagine being full of youthful idealism for Owen Smith

i genuinely can't

she supported andy burnham the last time round

tbf she's clearly got the razor-sharp political instincts which would make her a valued member of the plp

supporting Owen Smith at her age she'll be in the Monday Club by the time she's 50

at least the young william hague backed a winner ffs

lols!

LOL her headmaster is (wait for it) Andy Burnham's brother.

Basically what I was saying is that both sides would really rather continue to make gasfaces at one another than split and both end up in oblivion. The right of Labour would be nothing without the red rosette and most of them would be out at the next election even if they did split. The left of Labour wouldn't get anywhere without the numbers in the meantime, and didn't tolerate 13 years of Blair and Brown just to split off now. Even together neither of them are going anywhere worth going.

I'm pretty sure Corbyn's plan isn't to turn Labour into a slightly bigger version of the Greens but who can even tell.

If the Shadow Cabinet had waited a year or so then a more orderly transition might have been possible, as it stands they've shat themselves in anticipation of an election that now probably won't happen.

Making my way through this piece (a reply to another piece linked on ILX) that gives an account of the kinds of activism taking place, "taking stock", etc. Making my way through now.

Not sure what this "orderly transition" stuff is about. He could've lost but he has never been that down in the polls I've seen. The polling nationally wasn't at all awful (hardly amazing but not awful).

Alternatively, for Corbyn to give up a year from now Labour would have had to run on a platform with this hypothetical leader that was way further to the left than almost any of the Lab right would've been comfortable with. Lots of concessions in the manifesto they wouldn't have tolerated.

I feel like Teresa May has already been PM for like 9 years

What's the story on the shadow cabinet being elected not selected. Haven't heard that idea before Newsnight tonight.
& i assume that a labour MP called Steve Kinnock may be related to somebody more famous of the same name?

Funny watching an Anti-Corbyn lobbyist(or at least chugger)saying that Owen Smith and him are almost exactly the same

until 2011 the shadow cabinet was elected by the PLP, Miliband changed this in 2011 so that the shadow cabinet is appointed by the leader. ironically, the hard left was mostly against this at the time afaict - McDonnell said he was against it at the time and Corbyn had initially proposed bringing the old system back during his leadership bid, similarly to various other made over the years changes to strengthen the leadership that were supported by the right and opposed by the left as no-one predicted that someone from the hard-left would become leader

https://twitter.com/egg_dog/status/755442266156785664

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/07/entirely-fake-owen-smith/

Don't think that last comment from last night from me was clear. In the video of people chugging for the leadership vote that was either on Newsnight or BBC news before that started the posh female Anti-Corbynite chugger said that there was basically no difference between Smith and Corbyn. Which seemed a bit strange if she's trying to push the opposite message.

she's not, Smith was on Radio 4 this morning and the message is "I am a lefty and I have some lefty policies but I'm gonna be a better leader than Corbyn"

the broad outline of what he promised wasn't horrible - large investments in public infrastructure including health, social housing and schools. he also more or less categorically apologised for past suggestions that there was a place for the private sector in the NHS - even said the Blair government "made a mistake" on some of its reforms

still don't trust him, like

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16102-material-slicker-than-teflon-discovered-by-accident/

lol

Just watched Owen Smith being interviewed. Jesus, he is embarrassingly awful. Will have to double down on my efforts to avoid anything connected with the Labour Party for the next year or so. Trivial point but if you're going to tell a heart warming story about going down to your local with the missus to watch the Belgium v. Wales then you'd at least better get the score right.

This is the worst Teflon ever, all my eggs are stuck to the bottom of the pan and have gone all manky.

Yes, i don't know how someone with extensive PR and broadcast journalism experience can come off so badly. For all his wider media faults, Corbyn is pretty decent at dealing with interviewers.

Competence leadership competence leadership oh shit he just said the exact opposite of what he meant to say in his first major interview.

I hope Corbyn actually has a plan for what happens when he wins.

hope it involves death squads

Yes, i don't know how someone with extensive PR and broadcast journalism experience can come off so badly. For all his wider media faults, Corbyn is pretty decent at dealing with interviewers.

Exactly what I was thinking, no matter what you might think of Corbyn's PR skills, or lack of them, he's never been as bad as this.

Also, the Siadwel thing is just... undeniable.

Far as I can see it Corbyn tends to com e across as pretty genuine. Was surprised to see a couple of famous impression artists talking about him looking petulant a couple of weeks back.

& Smith is trying to come across as an ersatz Corbyn while going up against the real one and coming across as totally fake while he does it.

I guess the thing about that kind of transparent spin - shirt sleeves! young people! I am normal! - is that it can't be aimed at anybody who isn't a complete idiot and maybe that's the idea?

If not petulant, Corbyn does sometimes look like someone who can't always take a joke at their own expense - which is a perfectly natural, human response, and I think reinforces the idea that politics is a serious business that Corbyn takes seriously (as opposed to politicos like Cameron and Johnson, whose class and education have hammered home to them the value of 'charm' and the ability to laugh off criticism).

Funnily enough, given obvious blunders like the Little Red Book business, I always think John McDonnell comes across quite well when being grilled by ppl like Andrew Neil - doesn't ever seem to lose his rag, bats off tough questions pretty effectively, speaks in a human and even humorous way.

Yes, John McDonnell is always good. Corbyn is generally pretty good too though.

John McDonnell will almost certainly pen the best memoirs to come out of all this.

But then, I don't really understand 'flat footed' in regard to Rivette, who seems to know exactly what he wants to achieve through mise en scene, performance, dialogue etc (whether you think that's worth achieving is of course another matter)

LOL wrong thread!

Getouttahere with yer Nouvelle Vague.

sorry

I am normal.

https://twitter.com/steve_mccabe/status/755110702600290305

classic PLP

Nice.

He couldn't be further from the truth.

man the barricades! keep the proles out of the labour party!

If they end up forming Continuity Labour they can switch to an undemocratic system that suits them, until then stfu and stop slandering people who have joined your party.

Labour provo group next imo

The Shadwell Butchers

lol!

what happens if a CLP that's been suspended says "sod you" and continues to meet anyway as if nothing had changed? You can't stop people going into a room and having a meeting. Is it mainly a funding thing?

people who do that would probably get barred from voting?

Looks like people were planning to do it up and down the country.
& probably even more so since people are getting banned for trivial reasons anyway.

Hope the British telecom internet being down isn't screwing up anybody trying to sign up today

so wait if I signed up as a £3 member last year to vote in the previous leadership election, do I get to vote this time or do I need to pay another £25?

Labour website says: "Any eligible Labour Party member who became a member on or before 12 January 2016 will receive a vote without needing to register" but fuck knows what "eligible Labour Party member" might mean in this context

I was wondering the same, but I still paid the £25 the other day just to be sure.

The £3 wasn't to be a member was it? Wasn't it to register as a supporter, which entitled you to a vote? I might be entirely wrong.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/19/jeremy-corbyn-poll-angela-eagle-owen-smith-nominations-labour/

lol

I thought they were saying that the £3paid last year was a one off payment which allowed you to vote once. & that if you wanted to vote in this forthcoming electi8on you needed to pay the £25 too.
Which is why it 's so much bullshit since people thought the £3 last year would cover them.
Also not sure how they'll twist this £25 in future, if PLP are allowed to pull this shite again they might say that this only covers this one vote too.

I've seen taht the £25 makes you a supporter, is that the same thing as being a party member or are there other steps that you need to take. Would be good if it did mean you needed to be involved in the running of local party events etc to do so, hoping that locals will allow you to get involved which one would hope would be automatic. Of course not everybody has the time to spend doing things but might mean that things changed if everybody did get involved.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-leadership-election-how-to-vote-25-justgiving-jeremy-corbyn-angela-eagle-owen-smith-a7144931.html

not lol

I got an email telling me I can vote and about the timeline etc.

I haven't got that e-mail yet, I got some Labour post today but it turned out to be a postal ballot for new NEC reps.

I won't be voting for Eddie Izzard.

former Lib Dem spokesman Eddie Izzard

I have never heard anyone talk as much risible shit as Izzard on politics, he makes Smith look good.

Still wondering what the difference is between being a full member and a registered supporter or an affiliated supporter.
Do you progress from one to the other or something or are they the same thing?
& if they are the same thing why did people have to pay again after paying last year.

Or was it a case of you needing to actively take part or what?

Izzard has never been a Lib Dem as far as I know. He is awful though.

yeah i don't know why i keep thinking he had been, Google doesn't back it up. former Blairite apologist Eddie Izzard.

Whose appearance on Question Time did so much to persuade so many undecided voters to choose to vote Leave in the recent referendum.

I actually believe that Brexit was caused by agents Chuka + Izzard, it'll all come out in the end.

Honestly, if you haven't seen any of that QT with Izzard... well, I would recommend wathcing it tbh, you'll be sticking forks in your eyes in next to no time... forget I mentioned it.

Prob not worth paying the 25 quid if I'm a unite member who's always opted out of the political levy right

wouldn't recommend watching it FFS (xp)

I heard what was probably the same babbling idiocy on the radio and that was nauseating enough without seeing him.

I've only just realised we've got another two months of this shit.

During which countless folk will praise the Tories for not actually bothering to engage democratically in appointing a new PM.

two months? the PLP shd be able to disqualify every Corbyn supporter in the country by voting time

Stephen Bush of the New Statesman is predicting 150k registered supporters signing up, which would net the party £3.75m if correct. Would be 50k more voters than last time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wO_yZsUQj1U

180k in two days!

Never thought Smith had it in him to draw that kind of a surge.

lol

I hope its mostly a JC crowd. Saw in a survey that most of his supporters come from poor backgrounds.

I saw that there were some sources that could be tapped for a loan of the fee. Not sure hwo many people managed to do that but I did see somebody say they had managed.
Seems like utter maliciousness to prevent anybody from availing of the main donors and people helped out attempt website.

Really hoping taht this is people who this will actually benefit who did sign up. Not just the chattering classes.

Well..http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/20/labour-stops-crowd-funding-bid-to-help-supporters-pay-for-vote?CMP=share_btn_tw

Also lol @ grassroots "backed by several Labour-leaning celebrities, including the Harry Potter author, JK Rowling, writer Robert Harris and EastEnders star Ross Kemp."

wouldn't swap the support of Maxine Peake for any of that rabble!

Lot of landfill indie about in this country

https://twitter.com/babefeatures/status/671315434289954816

This is better

https://twitter.com/awesomewells/status/752938945604907008

"no-win smith"
8 results (0.45 seconds)

I just got an email about the leadership vote, but I'm still not sure if that is confirmation of eligibility. On the question of why I'm becoming affiliated I put something vague about credible opposition against the Tories, that might have done the job if they read it incorrectly. I was worried that not having a Facebook/Twitter account might cause suspicion.

shd have just put "I am normal".

nowt wrong with outright lying:p

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-leadership-election-jeremy-corbyn-s-critics-will-wage-war-of-attrition-to-force-him-out-a7149086.html

“There will be a process of attrition. Most of the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) will not serve under Jeremy. His position is untenable. The sooner he realises that, the better.” Another Labour MP said: “If we don’t win [the leadership] this year, we will do it again next year and, if necessary, the year after. At some point before the next general election, he will go. The only question is when.”

exterminate the brutes imo

There is still a lot of talk of charity and forgiveness at the moment, hopefully just a last chance warning because full on Beria mode would be perfectly justifiable at the moment.

He needs to play it back at them, actually go out and say that if they don't support whoever wins and refuse to form a functioning opposition then they will be the ones letting the country down.

People are still repeating the story of the brick through the constituency party office, just had somebody asking JC about it on the BBC News Channel. I thought news that it was on a related stairwell had spread pretty wide. So surprised this is still being spun.
Probably shouldn't be really. But god, how long is it going to repeat?

& JC said he'd apologised or rather sent commiserations or something. Since it wasn't down to him.
So it was definuitely something that was being spun at the time. THough i think that was well known.

I don't really understand the deselection process - why would it not trigger by-elections?

Is it that the deselection process just replaces who is going to be standing for a borough with another individual. & that doesn't have an effect on the schedule of local by-elections which is determined by something outside of the immediate situation.

Because they would remain a sitting MP until they either resign or a general election is called.

^^^ and remain a sitting Labour MP unless they chose otherwise

Just read this thing from The Canary about selectionof delegates for going to the Labour Party conference
http://www.thecanary.co/2016/07/22/newly-signed-labour-members-may-nasty-message-waiting-image-tweets/

hating democracy and free speech is a really strong look for these guys

The problem with deselection or reselection is that there's no guarantee that whoever comes in isn't going to have exactly the same problem with Corbyn. You can't blame him for not exactly wanting to guarantee job security for people who are actively trying to force him out though.

given that the majority of the PLP are expressing contempt for the party's supporters in word and deed giving those supporters a chance to express a view on this is absolutely necessary. hopefully thru as democratic a process as possible

@OwenSmith_MP says threat by Corbyn to make Labour MPs face re-selection is something you would find at Sports Direct.

How does he keep getting worse at this?

Vine - 'how do you stay relaxed in all of this?'

Corbyn - 'i eat normally'

"I eat, normally"?

I didn't see who brought up the attack on Eagle's constituency office window this morning on BBC News. Was it Smith?
Would think most people would find that underhanded but did see him on the news later talking about JC not being clearer that behaviour he was condemning was bad. So wondering if it was the same footage I only heard this morning.

The fact that it was a shared window doesn't matter, I think. Is there any reason for any of the others to have been targeted? Are vandal smashing commons there? I think it wouldn't be outlandish to assume that it was directed at her - there are assholes everywhere. Obviously you shouldn't claim it absolutely without more proof, and I think it's meaningless in terms of the contest because Corbyn has, I think, been clear about condemning such stuff. But I think there's a real chance she was the focus of the vandalism, and accusing her of lying is not a good look.

I thought the Police had it down as a botched Burglary attempt?

You mean a Watergate style operation by Momentum thugs? o_0

I thought the Police had it down as a botched Burglary attempt?

― Mark G, Friday, July 22, 2016 1:40 PM (13 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Somebody referred to it this morning and JC was asked about it on BBC news Channel today. I had thought it was as you say a botched burglary attempt. So am surprised it's still being brought up in terms of something JC needed to do something about.

Not sure if it was Smith but Smith is definitely saying JC should tell people to cease and desist leaving negative comments on his twitter feed. That's something that has been repeated on various newses on the channel today

I don't think you can really blame MPs for being nervous about threats and/or perceived intimidation just over a month after one was murdered in broad daylight. But I think some of this goes beyond feeling genuinely intimidated, what they're trying to do with this ban on eyerolling or whatever is to ban responses made in anger, often by the powerless, and there are so many things to be angry about right now. Sometimes being "civil" is the preserve of the privileged and it's denying other people a voice.

There are some cunts lining up behind Corbyn but the idea that outright abuse is confined to his side is self-evidently nonsense.

Smith has also said that none of this was around before JC became leader which is part of the interview taht's been repeated on the BBC news channel all day so will probably be turning up elsewhere.

& to m is a long way beyond unbelievable.

Just like Mr U-Turn complaining about JC vacillating

corbyn's being asked about it because eagle has cancelled her surgeries on police advice and then gone on to specifically say that corbyn is partially to blame for "stirring up trouble"

Looks like it was ian Watson who is a correspondent for the BBC I think who asked JC about the Eagle office brick episode, as though nothing further had been revealed since then. But since I thought it was being looked at as a botched robbery I did find it very weird. has anybody else in the building been forced to change their normal schedule because somebody vandalised the stair window?

If you ask loudly on the internet "Is this woman lying about this abuse", there'll always be people who'll tell you yes - if the police have described it as botched robbery then they've done so too quietly for Google to notice. Which is not to say that they haven't - if you've got an official police statement then that's cool, if not it might be an idea to sit on your hands for a bit.

If only this much effort could be putting in to condemning May/the Tories.

if not it might be an idea to sit on your hands for a bit.
>
Until when? A photograph of a broken window in Angela Eagle's office not the stairwell of the office block appears.
Gee I'll hold my breath then eh?

You claimed the police had said something specific, can you back this up?

I thought the Police had it down as a botched Burglary attempt?

― Mark G, Friday, July 22, 2016 1:40 PM (13 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Was where it was said i.e. not me

otherwise there have been various videos of the building and photos of the office with no broken window and the stairwell with a broken window around online. & various people talking about it which is why I thought it was widesopread news.

& since the photo is of the stairwell not the office I would think it odd taht the police were following up a story on an act of vandalism that didn't go down as has been otherwise reported.

it's totally plausible that this was somebody disgruntled with Angela Eagle, and it's unlikely we'll ever know one way or another, so i wouldn't question the truth of the claim but point out that it's still stupid, obnoxious and slanderous to try and blame Corbyn for it

"I had thought it was as you say a botched burglary attempt." - are you being hacked by the PLP there, Stevo?

You claimed the police had said something specific, can you back this up?

― Frederik B, Friday, July 22, 2016 7:03 PM (14 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Watch out, Fred's about.

just the facts, ma'am

There is nothing wrong with what I said . There is very little to go on in terms of blaming people following Corbyn for the vandalism of the windows of a stairwell is there? BUt that is the way it has been milked. I thought they had given up on that line of pursuit as fruitless since the actual window that was broken has been exposed

& where exactly in my comment do I say that the police said that? I said I thought that was the way it was being looked at since I do think that was true, at least until this morning when somebody brought it up again and asked Corbyn about it. Which i thought a bit dim since the photograph of the stairwell is the only one circulating with any signs of damage. The only photos of the Labour constituency office I've seen have had the window absolutely intact. & it's in a more vulnerable place.

just the facts, ma'am

― Guangchang, thank you man (Noodle Vague), Friday, July 22, 2016 8:19 PM (12 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

& if taht was the way it was looked at from the start there wouldn't have been a story in the first place would there?

i was just joking about Fred's "Columbo" shtick

i largely agree with you Steve but it's hard to draw many conclusions either way - we don't need to think that Eagle is fabricating her concerns to say that it's ludicrous to blame Corbyn

It is unpleasant when shit like this happens. Once I had a brick thrown through my window and I never knew if it was personal or not. The weather was shit and the council wouldn't temp board it up until I got a crime number from disinterested cops who have better shit to do. I am sure under normal circumstances "Brick Thrown Through Window in Merseyside" wouldn't cause so much discussion. On the other hand I do have some sympathy with Angela, because female politicians do have to deal with some very unsavoury elements and probably more so than their male counterparts. In my constituency we have one recently murdered female MP and another who had to improve her security after receiving threats to rape and kill her last year. But Angela's talk of Corbyn creating the conditions under which this type of abuse is occurring is absolute shite.

Hi,

I'm saying "I thought I heard"

I'm fairly sure I heard, but that doesn't mean its true, or some time later they decided otherwise.

& where exactly in my comment do I say that the police said that?

I am kind of giving you the benefit of the doubt there? Like, if you're pushing the idea that she's making this up, or overreacting, or any of the other ways that attacks against women are generally minimised, then I'd rather assume that you're doing this because there's an official report by people who are paid to look at this, rather than "someone said something and there's a Youtube".

There has been a photograph of the broken window pretty widely circulated.
The story that this was directly an attack on her office has been spun since the window was broken. It was not the window of her office.
So benefit of what doubt. I mean really mate the idea that I need your approval to see that the whole thing is a misreporting of fact strikes me as a little creepy to say the very least.

Why would the police be looking into the breaking of a window on her office if the window wasn't to her office?

Moreover it was pretty immediately blamed on Corbyn supporters for some reason. Not sure where that came from.

You're splitting hairs now - do you think it's an attack on Eagle or not? It's obvious to me why the police investigated a brick through the window of an adjacent stairwell on the day she announces her candidacy (and the day before she gets a credible-sounding death threat).

I agree that it's nothing to do with Corbyn, but you seem to be bending yourself around a corkscrew to avoid the idea that it's an attack on her.

Reading reports, it's even in there that there was glass "up and down the stairs". Nobody was hiding that it was on a stairwell. It also happened on the night after she announced her leadership challenge, after which she was also bombarded with threats and abuse, to the extent that an event had to be cancelled due to security concerns. Anyone coming to the building where her office is, and seeing a brick thrown into the window of the communal stairwell, would be excused for thinking it was against her. And the idea that it's just a coincidental botched robbery attempt on the same night seems unlikely, honestly (though of course, it's possible). So yeah, I'd hope you'd have more proof than just youtube videos and conspiratorial webpages.

Ah now, don't mock the Youtube! We don't know what sinister media forces are responsible for the stifling of the work of Mr, er, "Music Fuhrer".

I find it very difficult to believe a word she says.
Obviously you do.

The event in a Luton hotel was cancelled by the hotel, not Eagle's people, because the hotel had a policy of not taking bookings for political events.

The problem with the brick through the window (in a rough part of Wallasey, and opposite a pub) was the way Eagle and her supporters immediately jumped to suggest a Corbyn supporter was behind it, as if getting that idea out there and injuring Corbyn was more important than a proper investigation. Also, Merseyside police have denied approaching Eagle about cancelling her surgeries; they say she approached them. Dealing with entrenched misogyny is an issue bigger than the people on the left who might be like that; the fact that two women have become PM who are Tories has nothing to do with Labour being too misogynist to choose a female leader, and everything to do with Conservatives being OK with women who play a Queen Bee figure, which is the absolute antithesis of feminism because it's one woman handed power at the expense of other women.

Absolutely nailed it there Suzy, Angela's dishonest dialogue doesn't address the real problems or do either side any favours.

Also, May's feminism - if it can be called that - is the white woman/collar strain and while the top of the iceberg can be characterised as vaguely girl power when it suits, the Conservative policies she is happy to preside over actually disadvantage most of womankind disproportionately, and her tenure as Home Sec has undermined women trying to claim asylum and economic migrants who have to earn past certain thresholds to get settlement rights (20 per cent pay gaps mean that men doing a £35k job might have non-EU female colleagues on £28k in the same job). I told her as much about 'posh woman's feminism' when I debated her, so it's not like she hasn't had 15+ years to become less superficially feminist, right?

I've just been hearing a new story about an intrusion into the office of Seema Malhorta by a Labour Aide being reported on the BBC News Channel. That looks like another non-story being blown up since the Labour Aide was trying to check if the room was being vacated on schedule. But the story has had John McDonnell Appeal to Labour members, MPs etc to stop trying to destroy the Party
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/john-mcdonnell-video-andrew-marr-labour-leadership-election-owen-smith-jeremy-corbyn-a7153186.html
and
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/24/john-mcdonnell-labour-stop-destroying-party

He said: “We’ve got to stop this. Am I on this camera? Let me just say this to Labour Party supporters, Labour members, members of the Parliamentary Labour Party.

“We’ve got to stop this now. There’s a small group out there that are willing to destroy our party just to remove Jeremy Corbyn.

“We’ve got to stop them, we’ve got to unite. And if you want to come for me and Jeremy Corbyn, well then that’s up to you.

“I want Owen and Jeremy and everyone to say: ‘Let’s stop this now’.”

and that story had me thinking about the other non-story being blown out of proportion as far as I can see. So am wondering why I'm still hearing it being reported on BBC news as though t was the Constituency office window. Which quite clearly it wasn't.

and looking at what Suzy said the other day which i though clarified things a bit better than the nonsense I was hearing the other night about an event that is by definition random until proven otherwise. So its immediate attribution to a chosen category of person is inherently dodgy.

"The event in a Luton hotel was cancelled by the hotel, not Eagle's people, because the hotel had a policy of not taking bookings for political events."
>
That was the understanding i thought to be pretty widespread, was surprised to hear a different version being put forth on Friday

"The problem with the brick through the window (in a rough part of Wallasey, and opposite a pub)"
>
I looked at the Wallasey crime statistics yesterday and see that there seem to be around 80 events of vandalism per month.
https://www.police.uk/merseyside/A1/crime/criminal-damage-arson/
So wonder how the local police already dealing with that frequency would be viewing this, which also appears to lack any witnesses, apart from as a random act designated under whatever category. Looks like that would be Criminal Damage and Arson from looking at that site. So I got the designation a bit wrong
& as far as I'm aware the onus of proof in the UK is for the law to prove the accused is not innocent i.e. recognising that one is innocent until proven guilty. That rather than pick a random category of person immediately one hears the news and say that it must have been one of them. Do hope that is still the prevalent thought. Really didn't seem to be in this case.

or
"was the way Eagle and her supporters immediately jumped to suggest a Corbyn supporter was behind it, as if getting that idea out there and injuring Corbyn was more important than a proper investigation."
Also, Merseyside police have denied approaching Eagle about cancelling her surgeries; they say she approached them."
>
which might indicate how concrete a lead they had on things, as in not very. Also how strenuously the Police will be pursuing one of many cases when there has been nobody so far announced as a witness and there are a lot of probably similar crimes happening in the area.
I do wonder what they said to the other occupants of the shared building.
Also would hope that if things were targeted at her office they would have been aimed at her office, not the stairs.
I've heard teh occurrence reported as she had a brick through her constituency office window several times on the BBC News Channel over the weekend. Or at least mentioned in broadcast conversation as that. Would think that that might be something that would want to be vetoed since it is putting a more concrete image of an event that didn't take place as reported in the heads of the public but maybe that doesn't bother them

"Dealing with entrenched misogyny is an issue bigger than the people on the left who might be like that; the fact that two women have become PM who are Tories has nothing to do with Labour being too misogynist to choose a female leader, and everything to do with Conservatives being OK with women who play a Queen Bee figure, which is the absolute antithesis of feminism because it's one woman handed power at the expense of other women."
>
I'm also intrigued by this current attributon of teh development of widespread mysogyny, also antisemetism and homophobia to the last 9 months under Corbyn since I thought he was vehemently against that. Would think that if there is a culture of that anywhere in the Labour party it would need to be much older, but that doesn't seem to be the way it's being represented bY at least owen Smith.

Not a very nice picture of the Conservative party either, but I guess taht's to be expected.
I'm sure they must have some redeeming features somewhere.

I was puzzled by the story in the Sunday daily record today, which quoted smith as saying that kier Hardie would be horrified by the divisions I the Labour Party. Because it would seem to be the rebels that are causing the Labour Party to be preoccupied rather than focussing on the Tories. And corbyn's lot would seem more understandable to Hardie that the blairites.

In 1908, Hardie resigned as leader of the Labour Party and was replaced by Arthur Henderson.

A pacifist, Hardie was appalled by the First World War and along with socialists in other countries he tried to organise an international general strike to stop the war. His stance was not popular, even within the Labour Party, but he continued to address anti-war demonstrations across the country and to support conscientious objectors. After the outbreak of war, on 4 August 1914, Hardie's spirited anti-war speeches often received opposition in the form of loud heckling.

The dispute over spending and wage cuts split the Labour government; as it turned out, fatally. The cabinet repeatedly failed to agree to make cuts to spending or introduce tariffs. The resulting political deadlock caused investors to take fright, and a flight of capital and gold further de-stabilised the economy. In response, MacDonald, on the urging of the king agreed to form a National Government, with the Conservatives and the small group of Liberals. On 24 August 1931 MacDonald submitted the resignation of his ministers and led a small number of his senior colleagues, most notably Snowden and Dominions Secretary J. H. Thomas, in forming the National Government with the other parties. MacDonald and his supporters were then expelled from the Labour Party and formed National Labour. The remaining Labour Party, now led by Arthur Henderson, and a few Liberals went into opposition.

Surprise surprise, the likes of Owen Smith know fuck-all about the history of the Labour Party and the struggle for socialism within it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10156864

I hadn't realised it was Owen Smith that used this spectacularly ill-conceived metaphor about the coalition.

this is supposed to be the media-savvy electable one?

Yes, that one.

not been keeping up with all the developments on this but as far as being media savvy, our lord and saviour JC was pretty disappointing on newsnight last week. great that he hasnt undergone massive PR-blanding, but he looked a bit weird/irascible/petulant when asked about the cuban solidarity thing. the guy has to be one of the stiffest communicators in modern politics.

i finally put my finger on what bothers me about his interview style. every modern politician has an AGENDA, like 2 points they want to get across in an interview, and they just rattle those off no matter what question gets asked. jeremy corbyn doesn't do this, and it's slightly weird at first, and then it's cool, once you realise hey, this guy isn't just a robot rattling off talking points, he's actually responding to questions. the problem is, that's all he does, is respond to questions. he's purely reactive. sometimes he answers them quite well. but your opponents have an agenda, and they've lobbed their grenades into the court of public opinion, so reporters take those points and put them directly to corbyn. (this is How Journliasm Works). so corbyn is very rarely pressing his own case, he's reacting to others. he makes him come across as not very passionate, and always slightly on the back foot.

It's because he doesn't actually see any point in being there and is only in the studio because Seamus Milne has had to forcibly push him through the door.

yes i recognise that xpost

xpost - thats a pretty OTM take on where he falters.

i see it as him getting defensive. which makes him look less like a leader, and more like a bratty teenager. 'no i DIDNT do that!' he is just terrible on responding when cornered. its like he gets a bit panicked and ends up getting irritable/angry. its not like evan davis was grilling him, he was giving him quite a lot of space to breathe.

as for not having talking points, i get his updates on facebook, and they often seem to read quite similarly, so it seems he has a few. id say he has talking points, just no idea how to really elaborate on them, and get beyond the surface bullet points about being against austerity, etc.

(in a rough part of Wallasey, and opposite a pub)

Ok, it's the Liscard end, not the Egremont end, but I used to *dream* of living on Manor Road! [/ Four Yorkshiremen]

at least you had a view of something to dream of :p

Sarah Champion just asked for her front bench job back and appears to be getting it.
Wonder what to make of u-turning coup members.

JC doesn't have an interview style. Nor is he meant to have one.

re: Cuban solidarity he was defensive at first ("it was only 30 mins") but then I loved the bit where Evan did 'how is this relevant to someone in Barnsley?' and iirc he was able to say that it was and articulate a position of where ppl come from despite geographical distance - not so much on the back foot.

I'd say erratic more than anything. Most ppl just won't know where all this anti-imperialist malarkey is coming from - its been so pushed back. Just another universe to a lot of ppl and very hard to put across. JC isn't that person, but its what we have. "Only game in town" etc

I wonder if Sarah listened to that loathsome Smith profile on the wireless yesterday before deciding to unresign. I can't imagine any reasonable person listening to it and not thinking how far could I throw this fucker?

xyzzzz yes sometimes his answers are pretty great, and often don't sound defensive, but he's pretty much always playing on the field that's handed to him. which is a problem.

"Most ppl just won't know where all this anti-imperialist malarkey is coming from - its been so pushed back."

this isnt wrong but it would be nice if JC could find a way to put that point across. the opportunities for him to do it are there. i know anything like that is likely to make him an easy target for 'lol, the left' sort of comments, but id say people are more receptive, desperate even, for the agenda to be expanded right now.

er that is why he was voted as leader - JC/team came up with 'People's QE' and even though Brexit has largely been responsible the government are possibly taking this stuff seriously - it was derided as nonsense a year ago. This is an expansion of the agenda.

He puts enough of that stuff across. In the campaign launch he hinted at research being taken off pharma companies - again no concrete proposals but everytime he opens his mouth for long enough there is something to go on.

I just got a click on here to Ask the leadership candidates a question email from PLP. Wouldn't touch it with with the biggest ever barge pole tbh. Sharing the Labour family's values etc.

JUst watching Owen Smith oiling away on Newsnight tonight.
Now JC isn't Patriotic enough? Hadn't heard that before. Wouldn't have thought it was an issue . Is Owen angling for a new party when he doesn't get control of this one?

Not really been following what Owen Smith has been saying but ... I dunno ... for all Corbyn's faults, suggesting that he isn't patriotic enough seems a bit undignified.

It's the classic 'scoundrel defence'

owen smith comes across as a grasping little shit.

the guy some ppl think will 'save Labour'

Smith seems to be repeating talking points from this awful Tristram Hunt article, Corbyn is "metropolitan", squeamish about patriotism an so on:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/15/therell-always-be-an-england-tristram-hunt-labour-patriotism

seems an awkward fit with Smith's attempts to outflank Corbyn by being more pro-EU, talking about a second EU referendum etc. the idea that this was an area of vulnerability for Corbyn - where there is a gap between his position and that of many of his supporters - seems accurate to me, but Smith hasn't given any indication that he has the right stuff to be able to take advantage of this

hey, turns out it's the first refuge of a scoundrel

I don't really understand who he thinks that's going to play with.

A lot of the MPs who claim that the party doesn't understand non-metropolitan working class communities carry on supporting austerity. Or equivocating over it at the very least.

Is he trying to coax the Labour voters who left for UKIP back now that that party's goals are apparently achieved?

Or does he envision a future with a National Socialist Party?

Those voters aren't going to eligible and they certainly aren't going to pay £25 to support a guy who wants a second referendum.

Dude should just stick "any port in a storm, eh?" on all his campaign literature and leave it at that.

Is it me, or is his entire campaign just coming across like a bit of a botched robbery. Only instead of moving on when he realises that he can't get in to steal anything he's getting himself photographed holding the brick?

Ugh. It's edifying, watching Owen Smith try to suggest Corbyn is unpatriotic.

THe high Court case being taken by the multi-millionaire Labour donor Aseem Allam is starting today. The one about whether Corbyn needed 50 MPs' support to be on the ballot.
Allam was just talking on the BBC News channel. My tv signal screwed up while he was talking but the bit I did hear was going on about how the Left Wing leaning of the Labour Party should be a thing of the past because fo teh vast success they had heading right.

Norman Smith the Parliament correspondent was saying it might be a bit of an uphill battle for thechallengers since Judges don't like to get involved in Party political decisions. Not that this is a pointless case or anything.

Her also aid that the precedent being given of Neil Kinnock coming up with the 50+ signatures when his leadership was being challenged may well have been him simply ostentatiously showing what support he had. Looks like the Corbyn side are saying that the Labour Party rules don't actually say that the challengers themselves have to show that amount of supporters either.
Which might be a bit of a dodgy precedent to set. Though maybe the idea that anybody with no support challenging a standing leader is already a losing battle.

Allam really struggles with not getting his own way

but i return to my regular point that millionaire business people should not be welcome within a hundred miles of the Labour Party

CON 43% (+4)
LAB 27% (-2)

Typo in my last post it should be He also said not Her also aid

6 years into Tory austerity, a disastrous referendum and the resignation of the PM you'd be hoping the numbers there would be a little uh different

Given that McDonnell has said Corbyn will quit if he doesn't win an election (although I'm not sure I believe that) this is really a question of when and how Corbyn fails, not if, and what he actually expects to achieve in the meantime.

Incoming PMs usually enjoy a substantial polling bounce though. Even Gordon Brown was briefly very popular after assuming office.

Is that voting intention Matt? Yes, Ipsos MORI has this astonishingly line from 2007:

20-26 September 2007
CON: 31%
LAB: 44%
LD: 15%

I think it was October 07 when he announced that he wasn't going to call an election and his popularity collapsed and never recovered. And the economic cracks were only beginning to show back then. Given the challenges she faces, a similar collapse in May's ratings is far from impossible, although it doesn't follow that those votes would transfer to a Corbyn-led Labour.

Presumably no more so for a Labour with an alternative leader. Though that would be even more speculative anyway.

Of course, we can never know, but I believe a new PM gets a popularity boost, which would evap if they actually called an election based on "I'm popular right now"

I'm not sure how much credence to give polls after the last general election

Virtually none but a constant in recent polls has been a tendency to underestimate the right-wing vote.

Yeah I'm not making claims for a hidden left vote but there are a lot of potential voters outside the tribal categories now

Are people actually reacting against visible statistics by making protest votes that they don't think will alter perceived trends.

I was trying to remember the term for when a situation is altered by the fact that it's being observed.