At precisely the point the Labour Party needs all three of the main leadership candidates to be defining themselves against what Jeremy Corbyn stands for, they will subtly attempt to define themselves by moving closer to him. Why? Because electoral politics dictates it. Corbyn is the only one of the three certain to be knocked out of the contest before the final round. So Corbyn’s supporters are the only ones who are certain to be up for grabs.
Don’t believe everything you read on the Internet
Many people get it wrong, especially Tory activists that haven’t long been out of uni
From June the 4th onwards, we’ve had people telling us “it can’t be done”. We couldn’t get a socialist on the ballot paper. We couldn’t get a hearing for an anti-austerity voice in the leadership race. We certainly couldn’t get Jeremy Corbyn elected as Labour leader. Even after we achieved that incredible feat, we couldn’t change politics without being in government. We couldn’t defeat Cameron over the tax credits cuts. So it’s right and proper to celebrate this win - as a statement that we can, but in the full knowledge that there are many, many more battles to come. What’s next?
The British press “systematically undermined” Jeremy Corbyn with an onslaught of negative media coverage in his first week as Labour leader, new research has claimed.
The Media Reform Coalition analysed nearly 500 pieces across eight national newspapers, including The Sun, The Times, Guardian and Daily Mail, and found 60% of their articles were ‘negative’, meaning they were openly hostile or expressed animosity or ridicule.
Out of the 494 articles across the papers during Corbyn’s first seven days at leader, 60% (296 articles) were negative, with only 13% positive stories (65 articles) and 27% taking a “neutral” stance (133 articles), the report says.
From June the 4th onwards, we’ve had people telling us “it can’t be done”. We couldn’t get a socialist on the ballot paper. We couldn’t get a hearing for an anti-austerity voice in the leadership race. We certainly couldn’t get Jeremy Corbyn elected as Labour leader. Even after we achieved that incredible feat, we couldn’t change politics without being in government. We couldn’t defeat Cameron over the tax credits cuts. So it’s right and proper to celebrate this win - as a statement that we can, but in the full knowledge that there are many, many more battles to come. What’s next?
No doubt they opposed it, but was it not a Liberal proposal to scrap the plan completely, which was voted down. Labour lords wanted it postponed and also a 3 year transition plan for the worst affected.
I think Corbyn’s right on this and should stand by his assertions. Everyone’s entitled to their opinion on the matter, but it does serve to undermine the leadership when 2 very senior figures in the party publicly come out against his policy.
They were discussing reasons why he sent the letter. One mischievous theory was that the majority of the shadow cabinet were in favour of action in Syria, and there was a distinct possibility of imposing a three line whip on the matter. That would have left JC in the position of having to rebel against the party that he leads.
therefore he got a pre emotive strike in to try and avoid this.
I received an invitation to give my thoughts on whether Cameron should go into Syria. I’m not sure how clever the idea will be yet, or whether it will work, but surely the intention behind canvassing the wider party at large is to determine which side of the debate is out of step with the views of the membership.
If, as he suspects, he’s got a huge number of people backing him up, then he’s in a stronger position to enforce his will.
He may be right, however he has managed to piss off his top team. The PLP is supposed to managed by the consensus of the cabinet, not at the whim of the leader.
If I were the tories, I would be getting something defence related on the agenda in the weeks running up to any election, then sit back and watch the PLP tie itself in knots.
When it comes down to it, this entire screaming match has got little to do with Syria itself, and much more to do with the disputed “ownership” of the party, hijacked by New Labour in the mid 90s and being fought over now. You’re entirely correct when you say that defence is a sensitive issue, and one not readily understood by a vengeful and emotive public pumped up by current events. Along with immigration, it’s one of Corbyn’s two true weaknesses.
That said, I don’t think Cameron has made a convincing case for action, or that his action will lead to any resolution in isolation. I don’t think that we should go in, because the only outcomes that’ll be achieved are cost, death and fuelling more extremism. The really sad thing is that these concerned Labour MPs know this. Fiona MacTaggart and John Spellar both claim that Corbyn’s lack of support for Cameron’s short-termism is a leadership issue. It’s not even a good plan.
With my darkest glasses on, the view looks suspiciously like a couple of MPs that are happy to have Syrians killed in an otherwise meaningless campaign _ if _ it expedites the political death of their leader. Let’s hope that’s not the case, eh - as they’d be pretty fucking disgusting examples of humanity were it to be so.
Hmm, this move might be smarter than I thought. A piece in the Guardian today, indicating that Labour MPs will get a free vote on the issue.
[McDonnell] went on to endorse the idea of giving Labour MPs a free vote, adding that the “horrendous mistake” of the Iraq war had been partly due to MPs being “whipped and threatened and pushed” into supporting “something many of them did not believe in”.
McDonnell said on BBC Radio 4’s Any Questions: “I don’t believe that is acceptable. There are some issues, like going to war, that should be above party politics, and I think we are moving to a situation where, hopefully, in all parties on issues like this, a moral conscience should be above the whip as well.
“On certain issues, the ones really above party politics, we have got to have mature politics in our democracy now. This is a matter of conscience. You are sending people out possibly to die. There shouldn’t be any party discipline on matters like this. You should follow your own judgment on what you think is best for the constituency and the country.”
My personal views are similar, but there’s a bit of political savvy to this move. A free vote is not a free pass. Individual MPs wanting action in Syria now have to justify their position to their constituents. “The leadership made me do it” won’t cut the mustard anymore, not that it ever should have.
When it comes down to it, this entire screaming match has got little to do with Syria itself, and much more to do with the disputed “ownership” of the party, hijacked by New Labour in the mid 90s and being fought over now. You’re entirely correct when you say that defence is a sensitive issue, and one not readily understood by a vengeful and emotive public pumped up by current events. Along with immigration, it’s one of Corbyn’s two true weaknesses.
That said, I don’t think Cameron has made a convincing case for action, or that his action will lead to any resolution in isolation. I don’t think that we should go in, because the only outcomes that’ll be achieved are cost, death and fuelling more extremism. The really sad thing is that these concerned Labour MPs know this. Fiona MacTaggart and John Spellar both claim that Corbyn’s lack of support for Cameron’s short-termism is a leadership issue. It’s not even a good plan.
With my darkest glasses on, the view looks suspiciously like a couple of MPs that are happy to have Syrians killed in an otherwise meaningless campaign _ if _ it expedites the political death of their leader. Let’s hope that’s not the case, eh - as they’d be pretty fucking disgusting examples of humanity were it to be so.
Wow.
I think you’re enjoying putting those dark glasses on a wee bit too much for your own good health, Pap.
I’ve been watching some of the Corbyn news today. First off, thought he was the picture of calm on the Andrew Marr show. Pretty much dismantled Cameron’s flimsy case for war.
I said yesterday that a free vote would have been a good outcome. I still think that, but it seems pretty clear that there are other things going on. People may see this as the opportune moment for disgruntled Labour MPs, but those MPs would be crazy not to see the danger that lurks for them. According to the interview, 70,000 people have already emailed Corbyn back with their thoughts on the case for war.
It’s pretty clear that the Party won’t be instructing their MPs to vote with Cameron, so really, it’s a free vote or something for them to rebel against. Either way, they’ll need to answer to their constituents.
Here’s the thing. The people that are now demanding a free vote would have wanted him to have come out in favour of action. I don’t think a free vote is a bad or damaging thing to Corbyn at all, but it’ll be presented as a compromise, something that’s been given to the PLP to placate them, and probably what Corbyn wanted all along if McDonnell and he are in step.
The wider point is that they haven’t really needed to do any of it, and have actually made themselves look less credible as a consequence of some of the negative reporting. There was a small study done of the first week of Corbyn’s candidacy which proved that newspapers were systematically going after him.
There is a big gap between what the media thinks is important and the day to day concerns of the voters. Marr illustrated this in his interview yesterday. “It’s been a terrible, terrible week for the Labour Party”, he says, without irony . I know it is his job to provoke, but that doesn’t really fit the reality of an opposition that had just forced the government to u-turn on policies.
As someone that does support Corbyn, I’m glad that we’ve just had the week we have had, and am pleased that Cameron’s half-baked bombing plan is the issue that certain Labour MPs have chosen to draw a line in the sand on. They are utterly fucking mental to do so; the Iraq war was the beginning of the end for New Labour.
It hasn’t been a success, and it’s interesting to note Marr’s respective stances on Labour leaders. After Baghdad had been secured, Marr was on the steps of 10 Downing Street pronouncing how Blair had become “a larger man” and had been vindicated by the lack of bloodshed. I wonder if he would say the same now.
