Westminster Politics

[Flying high]

And which mistakes do you believe Corbyn made?

I assume he means to make sure any red tories are kicked out asap.

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

And which mistakes do you believe Corbyn made?

1. Scared the wealthy.
2. Was too honest.
3. Proposed policies that no opposition party has any business making in this country.

 

[Frosty]

And which mistakes do you believe Corbyn made?

Not a question of belief. He made them. Silly to suggest that he didn''t, otherwise you are putting all the blame on the media and internal party opponents, both of which have been a problem for every single Labour leader and PM.

Loads of you probably won't like this, but here goes.

He said so himself:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-52050581

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/corbyn-admits-mistakes-in-his-first-year-of-leadership-lhjngdzh3

He was dealt a bad hand with the 2015 defeat, and dealing with the fallout of Brexit, but so have other leaders. Starmer inherited the worst defeat in 80 years and a tiny PLP, and if he blames that fact for the outcome of the next election everyone will think he is crazy. There was an attempt to replace Attlee as PM and leader after he had won the 1945 election by his opponents, but before he had been sworn in at the opening of Parliament, and Wilson was not far away from an MI5 led coup, believing he was a Soviet agent.

Corbyn knew all this. He also knew the power of the media given he was elected in 1983.

There was plenty Corbyn could have done, big and small, to avoid self inflicted injuries and to mitigate the media's responses, as well as to gain control of the PLP.

Most of all, I think it stems from the fact that he wasn't willing to compromise on issues important to him, and also that I don't think he wanted to be leader in the first place. He certainly wanted to stand, as it was his 'turn' to do so. I think that if McDonnell was leader things would have been better as he was more willing to give ground in areas where it would benefit the party in the long run. The irony there is i don't think McDonnell would have been as popular with the membership, and given his health problems it likely would have killed him.

I also think Corbybn suffered from a lack of political experience. Being a backbencher helped elect him in 2015, but set him back when he had to deal with being a party leader (except campaigning, which he had decades of experience at and excelled at in 2017).

So, the small stuff. Not singing the national anthem. Not hiring an image consultant and buying a new suit. Most people don't follow politics that closely, and you have one chance to make a first impression. That was missed. Small, but it all builds up. A future left leader will - I am as certain as I can be - learn from that and not repeat it, regardless of what they think about the monarch.

Trident - no point challenging the party or the wider public on this one, especially as the unions remain heavily invested in renewal given the jobs involved, and it was going against party policy. This is an example of how not to pick your battles. Get elected and then make the decisions. Once you have a mandate from the people, and loads of nice new socialist MPs on the back benches, then scrap it. Although now given Russia's actions that question is likely done for a generation.

The main focus of Corbyn's elections and the reason behind his 2017 surge was the economy and opposition to austerity. Too often was that diverted from in terms of policy discussions.

Loads of this stuff was documented by Vice.

One example is the use of Iain Duncan-Smith's resignation before a debate on refugees to talk about refugees and not slam the government for the full time, That's not a sensible use of the media, and it enabled Cameron to avoid criticism not just in Parliament but also in the news cycle.


The 2019 manifesto. Far too long and far too much. I canvassed in 8 constituencies in 2019, and I will put to one side the comments made about Corbyn the man.

Lord Ashcroft went through where it all went wrong for the Labour Party in 2019 here, and it wasn't all about Brexit: https://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-co...DIAGNOSIS-OF-DEFEAT-LORD-ASHCROFT-POLLS-1.pdf

The biggest points raised were how would everything be paid for, followed closely by what are the priorities for Labour. There was so much that people could not remember it, and were not sure on what we would prioritise. The 2017 manifesto was shorter, much more easily communicated and stuck in peoples minds. Ultimately, if we were elected in 2019 on a 'slimmed down' package, once COVID hit (or any economic issue really) it would have been justifiable to say "changed circumstances now mean we need to do x, y, and z). We have done it before. Raising taxes soon after the 2001 election having campaigned not to. The worst example is Cameron's austerity, which amounted to something like £6bn in their 2010 manifesto, which somehow transformed into hollowing out the state and adding £1.5 trillion to the national debt.

The big one - being too democratic and too nice.

Before you jump down my throat, political parties have never been true democracies.

Corbyn comes from the Bennite wing which is big on party democracy and generally opposes interventions from the leadership in party democracy questions. This became a massive problem.

First, the party machinery. Far too many people were elected to party offices and the NEC who had glass jaws, based on previous statements, previous beliefs they held or were clearly unable to keep their mouths shut and quietly do their jobs, which would be to transform the party.

Pete Willsman would be just one example: https://www.politicshome.com/news/a...sraeli-embassy-whipped-up-antisemitism-claims

If you want to be a councillor or MP the Labour Party will vet you to see what skeletons you have in your closet. If there is anything there which could be used against you, you won't be chosen, even if you have not acted immorally.

The Momentum slates for the party had a large number of candidates who should have been weeded out. Lord knows there were a tonne of viable and excellent people who never made it to the slate. Corbyn and the party leadership having more control and having a greater say in selections would have made a difference. It would have taken the heat off the NEC members and it would also have allowed them to vote through whatever rules changes you want, instead of every vote highlighting who is voting.

I won't mention anti-semitism except for this - the Forde Report has made clear that all forms of racism have not been dealt with in the party. That clearly pre-dates Starmer and it pre-dates Corbyn. He needed to get out in front of it, and tell Compliance to do their jobs, instead of encouraging anyone and everyone to join. He believes that as MPs can cross political parties, so members of other political parties can join Labour, despite it being against the Party Rulebook. If even 10 or 20 people had been prevented from (re)joining, that would have made a huge difference.

This is getting lengthy now, so I will turn to the PLP.

He was elected on a huge member mandate. He needed to exert control over his MPs from the start. This again may have been affected by his experience and background. It must have been very strange going from always being one voice in the meeting to running it in front of hostile attendees. But Johnson showed what could be done in 2019 - if you do not agree with me (and by extension the membership) then say goodbye to the whip, sit on the backbenches and vote along with the Tories if you dare. By the time of the next election the membership will select your replacement.

But again he was too democratic, and probably also aware of himself being a serial rebel. He was far too passive. I remember 2016 when he was holed up in his office and McDonnell was gatekeeper, not allowing MPs like Tom Watson to see him and speak to him. Again this is optics but it is important. He should have come out, spoken to the press, clearly defended his Brexit stance and told MPs to back him, and if they resigned from the Shadow Cabinet, to have the whip withdrawn too. The 2016 leadership vote showed the members would have backed him.

Small things, big things. They all add up. Would it have been hypocritical for him to demand loyalty from MPs when he was disloyal himself? Massively. Would the press have covered it? Yes. Would it have mattered to the electorate? No, not as much as standing for something and standing by that something.

My manager is actively asking me questions about the contents of this post now so I will leave it there for the moment...

 

[Fluctuation0161]

Not a question of belief. He made them. Silly to suggest that he didn''t, otherwise you are putting all the blame on the media and internal party opponents, both of which have been a problem for every single Labour leader and PM.

Loads of you probably won't like this, but here goes.

He said so himself:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-52050581

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/corbyn-admits-mistakes-in-his-first-year-of-leadership-lhjngdzh3

He was dealt a bad hand with the 2015 defeat, and dealing with the fallout of Brexit, but so have other leaders. Starmer inherited the worst defeat in 80 years and a tiny PLP, and if he blames that fact for the outcome of the next election everyone will think he is crazy. There was an attempt to replace Attlee as PM and leader after he had won the 1945 election by his opponents, but before he had been sworn in at the opening of Parliament, and Wilson was not far away from an MI5 led coup, believing he was a Soviet agent.

Corbyn knew all this. He also knew the power of the media given he was elected in 1983.

There was plenty Corbyn could have done, big and small, to avoid self inflicted injuries and to mitigate the media's responses, as well as to gain control of the PLP.

Most of all, I think it stems from the fact that he wasn't willing to compromise on issues important to him, and also that I don't think he wanted to be leader in the first place. He certainly wanted to stand, as it was his 'turn' to do so. I think that if McDonnell was leader things would have been better as he was more willing to give ground in areas where it would benefit the party in the long run. The irony there is i don't think McDonnell would have been as popular with the membership, and given his health problems it likely would have killed him.

I also think Corbybn suffered from a lack of political experience. Being a backbencher helped elect him in 2015, but set him back when he had to deal with being a party leader (except campaigning, which he had decades of experience at and excelled at in 2017).

So, the small stuff. Not singing the national anthem. Not hiring an image consultant and buying a new suit. Most people don't follow politics that closely, and you have one chance to make a first impression. That was missed. Small, but it all builds up. A future left leader will - I am as certain as I can be - learn from that and not repeat it, regardless of what they think about the monarch.

Trident - no point challenging the party or the wider public on this one, especially as the unions remain heavily invested in renewal given the jobs involved, and it was going against party policy. This is an example of how not to pick your battles. Get elected and then make the decisions. Once you have a mandate from the people, and loads of nice new socialist MPs on the back benches, then scrap it. Although now given Russia's actions that question is likely done for a generation.

The main focus of Corbyn's elections and the reason behind his 2017 surge was the economy and opposition to austerity. Too often was that diverted from in terms of policy discussions.

Loads of this stuff was documented by Vice.

One example is the use of Iain Duncan-Smith's resignation before a debate on refugees to talk about refugees and not slam the government for the full time, That's not a sensible use of the media, and it enabled Cameron to avoid criticism not just in Parliament but also in the news cycle.


The 2019 manifesto. Far too long and far too much. I canvassed in 8 constituencies in 2019, and I will put to one side the comments made about Corbyn the man.

Lord Ashcroft went through where it all went wrong for the Labour Party in 2019 here, and it wasn't all about Brexit: https://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-co...DIAGNOSIS-OF-DEFEAT-LORD-ASHCROFT-POLLS-1.pdf

The biggest points raised were how would everything be paid for, followed closely by what are the priorities for Labour. There was so much that people could not remember it, and were not sure on what we would prioritise. The 2017 manifesto was shorter, much more easily communicated and stuck in peoples minds. Ultimately, if we were elected in 2019 on a 'slimmed down' package, once COVID hit (or any economic issue really) it would have been justifiable to say "changed circumstances now mean we need to do x, y, and z). We have done it before. Raising taxes soon after the 2001 election having campaigned not to. The worst example is Cameron's austerity, which amounted to something like £6bn in their 2010 manifesto, which somehow transformed into hollowing out the state and adding £1.5 trillion to the national debt.

The big one - being too democratic and too nice.

Before you jump down my throat, political parties have never been true democracies.

Corbyn comes from the Bennite wing which is big on party democracy and generally opposes interventions from the leadership in party democracy questions. This became a massive problem.

First, the party machinery. Far too many people were elected to party offices and the NEC who had glass jaws, based on previous statements, previous beliefs they held or were clearly unable to keep their mouths shut and quietly do their jobs, which would be to transform the party.

Pete Willsman would be just one example: https://www.politicshome.com/news/a...sraeli-embassy-whipped-up-antisemitism-claims

If you want to be a councillor or MP the Labour Party will vet you to see what skeletons you have in your closet. If there is anything there which could be used against you, you won't be chosen, even if you have not acted immorally.

The Momentum slates for the party had a large number of candidates who should have been weeded out. Lord knows there were a tonne of viable and excellent people who never made it to the slate. Corbyn and the party leadership having more control and having a greater say in selections would have made a difference. It would have taken the heat off the NEC members and it would also have allowed them to vote through whatever rules changes you want, instead of every vote highlighting who is voting.

I won't mention anti-semitism except for this - the Forde Report has made clear that all forms of racism have not been dealt with in the party. That clearly pre-dates Starmer and it pre-dates Corbyn. He needed to get out in front of it, and tell Compliance to do their jobs, instead of encouraging anyone and everyone to join. He believes that as MPs can cross political parties, so members of other political parties can join Labour, despite it being against the Party Rulebook. If even 10 or 20 people had been prevented from (re)joining, that would have made a huge difference.

This is getting lengthy now, so I will turn to the PLP.

He was elected on a huge member mandate. He needed to exert control over his MPs from the start. This again may have been affected by his experience and background. It must have been very strange going from always being one voice in the meeting to running it in front of hostile attendees. But Johnson showed what could be done in 2019 - if you do not agree with me (and by extension the membership) then say goodbye to the whip, sit on the backbenches and vote along with the Tories if you dare. By the time of the next election the membership will select your replacement.

But again he was too democratic, and probably also aware of himself being a serial rebel. He was far too passive. I remember 2016 when he was holed up in his office and McDonnell was gatekeeper, not allowing MPs like Tom Watson to see him and speak to him. Again this is optics but it is important. He should have come out, spoken to the press, clearly defended his Brexit stance and told MPs to back him, and if they resigned from the Shadow Cabinet, to have the whip withdrawn too. The 2016 leadership vote showed the members would have backed him.

Small things, big things. They all add up. Would it have been hypocritical for him to demand loyalty from MPs when he was disloyal himself? Massively. Would the press have covered it? Yes. Would it have mattered to the electorate? No, not as much as standing for something and standing by that something.

My manager is actively asking me questions about the contents of this post now so I will leave it there for the moment...

Some fair comments in there.

Refreshing to see some actual critique of Corbyns leadership rather than the inaccurate bile we see all to regularly in this thread.

I agree with the bolded. Any normal politician would've only publically shared their more popular opinions.He was too honest. Ironic considering many will moan about lying politicians but won't support an honest one.

He was also naive in regard to the media onslaught. But it was an unprecedented scale of media campaign against a party leader to remove him. Also naive not to remove those within Labour who sabotaged GE campaigns.

 

[ThehatchetMan]

Not a question of belief. He made them. Silly to suggest that he didn''t, otherwise you are putting all the blame on the media and internal party opponents, both of which have been a problem for every single Labour leader and PM.

Loads of you probably won't like this, but here goes.

He said so himself:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-52050581

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/corbyn-admits-mistakes-in-his-first-year-of-leadership-lhjngdzh3

He was dealt a bad hand with the 2015 defeat, and dealing with the fallout of Brexit, but so have other leaders. Starmer inherited the worst defeat in 80 years and a tiny PLP, and if he blames that fact for the outcome of the next election everyone will think he is crazy. There was an attempt to replace Attlee as PM and leader after he had won the 1945 election by his opponents, but before he had been sworn in at the opening of Parliament, and Wilson was not far away from an MI5 led coup, believing he was a Soviet agent.

Corbyn knew all this. He also knew the power of the media given he was elected in 1983.

There was plenty Corbyn could have done, big and small, to avoid self inflicted injuries and to mitigate the media's responses, as well as to gain control of the PLP.

Most of all, I think it stems from the fact that he wasn't willing to compromise on issues important to him, and also that I don't think he wanted to be leader in the first place. He certainly wanted to stand, as it was his 'turn' to do so. I think that if McDonnell was leader things would have been better as he was more willing to give ground in areas where it would benefit the party in the long run. The irony there is i don't think McDonnell would have been as popular with the membership, and given his health problems it likely would have killed him.

I also think Corbybn suffered from a lack of political experience. Being a backbencher helped elect him in 2015, but set him back when he had to deal with being a party leader (except campaigning, which he had decades of experience at and excelled at in 2017).

So, the small stuff. Not singing the national anthem. Not hiring an image consultant and buying a new suit. Most people don't follow politics that closely, and you have one chance to make a first impression. That was missed. Small, but it all builds up. A future left leader will - I am as certain as I can be - learn from that and not repeat it, regardless of what they think about the monarch.

Trident - no point challenging the party or the wider public on this one, especially as the unions remain heavily invested in renewal given the jobs involved, and it was going against party policy. This is an example of how not to pick your battles. Get elected and then make the decisions. Once you have a mandate from the people, and loads of nice new socialist MPs on the back benches, then scrap it. Although now given Russia's actions that question is likely done for a generation.

The main focus of Corbyn's elections and the reason behind his 2017 surge was the economy and opposition to austerity. Too often was that diverted from in terms of policy discussions.

Loads of this stuff was documented by Vice.

One example is the use of Iain Duncan-Smith's resignation before a debate on refugees to talk about refugees and not slam the government for the full time, That's not a sensible use of the media, and it enabled Cameron to avoid criticism not just in Parliament but also in the news cycle.


The 2019 manifesto. Far too long and far too much. I canvassed in 8 constituencies in 2019, and I will put to one side the comments made about Corbyn the man.

Lord Ashcroft went through where it all went wrong for the Labour Party in 2019 here, and it wasn't all about Brexit: https://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-co...DIAGNOSIS-OF-DEFEAT-LORD-ASHCROFT-POLLS-1.pdf

The biggest points raised were how would everything be paid for, followed closely by what are the priorities for Labour. There was so much that people could not remember it, and were not sure on what we would prioritise. The 2017 manifesto was shorter, much more easily communicated and stuck in peoples minds. Ultimately, if we were elected in 2019 on a 'slimmed down' package, once COVID hit (or any economic issue really) it would have been justifiable to say "changed circumstances now mean we need to do x, y, and z). We have done it before. Raising taxes soon after the 2001 election having campaigned not to. The worst example is Cameron's austerity, which amounted to something like £6bn in their 2010 manifesto, which somehow transformed into hollowing out the state and adding £1.5 trillion to the national debt.

The big one - being too democratic and too nice.

Before you jump down my throat, political parties have never been true democracies.

Corbyn comes from the Bennite wing which is big on party democracy and generally opposes interventions from the leadership in party democracy questions. This became a massive problem.

First, the party machinery. Far too many people were elected to party offices and the NEC who had glass jaws, based on previous statements, previous beliefs they held or were clearly unable to keep their mouths shut and quietly do their jobs, which would be to transform the party.

Pete Willsman would be just one example: https://www.politicshome.com/news/a...sraeli-embassy-whipped-up-antisemitism-claims

If you want to be a councillor or MP the Labour Party will vet you to see what skeletons you have in your closet. If there is anything there which could be used against you, you won't be chosen, even if you have not acted immorally.

The Momentum slates for the party had a large number of candidates who should have been weeded out. Lord knows there were a tonne of viable and excellent people who never made it to the slate. Corbyn and the party leadership having more control and having a greater say in selections would have made a difference. It would have taken the heat off the NEC members and it would also have allowed them to vote through whatever rules changes you want, instead of every vote highlighting who is voting.

I won't mention anti-semitism except for this - the Forde Report has made clear that all forms of racism have not been dealt with in the party. That clearly pre-dates Starmer and it pre-dates Corbyn. He needed to get out in front of it, and tell Compliance to do their jobs, instead of encouraging anyone and everyone to join. He believes that as MPs can cross political parties, so members of other political parties can join Labour, despite it being against the Party Rulebook. If even 10 or 20 people had been prevented from (re)joining, that would have made a huge difference.

This is getting lengthy now, so I will turn to the PLP.

He was elected on a huge member mandate. He needed to exert control over his MPs from the start. This again may have been affected by his experience and background. It must have been very strange going from always being one voice in the meeting to running it in front of hostile attendees. But Johnson showed what could be done in 2019 - if you do not agree with me (and by extension the membership) then say goodbye to the whip, sit on the backbenches and vote along with the Tories if you dare. By the time of the next election the membership will select your replacement.

But again he was too democratic, and probably also aware of himself being a serial rebel. He was far too passive. I remember 2016 when he was holed up in his office and McDonnell was gatekeeper, not allowing MPs like Tom Watson to see him and speak to him. Again this is optics but it is important. He should have come out, spoken to the press, clearly defended his Brexit stance and told MPs to back him, and if they resigned from the Shadow Cabinet, to have the whip withdrawn too. The 2016 leadership vote showed the members would have backed him.

Small things, big things. They all add up. Would it have been hypocritical for him to demand loyalty from MPs when he was disloyal himself? Massively. Would the press have covered it? Yes. Would it have mattered to the electorate? No, not as much as standing for something and standing by that something.

My manager is actively asking me questions about the contents of this post now so I will leave it there for the moment...

Not had a chance to read this yet but thank you for such a detailed response. Looking forward to reading through it all.

 

[Jippy]

Not a question of belief. He made them. Silly to suggest that he didn''t, otherwise you are putting all the blame on the media and internal party opponents, both of which have been a problem for every single Labour leader and PM.

Loads of you probably won't like this, but here goes.

He said so himself:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-52050581

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/corbyn-admits-mistakes-in-his-first-year-of-leadership-lhjngdzh3

He was dealt a bad hand with the 2015 defeat, and dealing with the fallout of Brexit, but so have other leaders. Starmer inherited the worst defeat in 80 years and a tiny PLP, and if he blames that fact for the outcome of the next election everyone will think he is crazy. There was an attempt to replace Attlee as PM and leader after he had won the 1945 election by his opponents, but before he had been sworn in at the opening of Parliament, and Wilson was not far away from an MI5 led coup, believing he was a Soviet agent.

Corbyn knew all this. He also knew the power of the media given he was elected in 1983.

There was plenty Corbyn could have done, big and small, to avoid self inflicted injuries and to mitigate the media's responses, as well as to gain control of the PLP.

Most of all, I think it stems from the fact that he wasn't willing to compromise on issues important to him, and also that I don't think he wanted to be leader in the first place. He certainly wanted to stand, as it was his 'turn' to do so. I think that if McDonnell was leader things would have been better as he was more willing to give ground in areas where it would benefit the party in the long run. The irony there is i don't think McDonnell would have been as popular with the membership, and given his health problems it likely would have killed him.

I also think Corbybn suffered from a lack of political experience. Being a backbencher helped elect him in 2015, but set him back when he had to deal with being a party leader (except campaigning, which he had decades of experience at and excelled at in 2017).

So, the small stuff. Not singing the national anthem. Not hiring an image consultant and buying a new suit. Most people don't follow politics that closely, and you have one chance to make a first impression. That was missed. Small, but it all builds up. A future left leader will - I am as certain as I can be - learn from that and not repeat it, regardless of what they think about the monarch.

Trident - no point challenging the party or the wider public on this one, especially as the unions remain heavily invested in renewal given the jobs involved, and it was going against party policy. This is an example of how not to pick your battles. Get elected and then make the decisions. Once you have a mandate from the people, and loads of nice new socialist MPs on the back benches, then scrap it. Although now given Russia's actions that question is likely done for a generation.

The main focus of Corbyn's elections and the reason behind his 2017 surge was the economy and opposition to austerity. Too often was that diverted from in terms of policy discussions.

Loads of this stuff was documented by Vice.

One example is the use of Iain Duncan-Smith's resignation before a debate on refugees to talk about refugees and not slam the government for the full time, That's not a sensible use of the media, and it enabled Cameron to avoid criticism not just in Parliament but also in the news cycle.


The 2019 manifesto. Far too long and far too much. I canvassed in 8 constituencies in 2019, and I will put to one side the comments made about Corbyn the man.

Lord Ashcroft went through where it all went wrong for the Labour Party in 2019 here, and it wasn't all about Brexit: https://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-co...DIAGNOSIS-OF-DEFEAT-LORD-ASHCROFT-POLLS-1.pdf

The biggest points raised were how would everything be paid for, followed closely by what are the priorities for Labour. There was so much that people could not remember it, and were not sure on what we would prioritise. The 2017 manifesto was shorter, much more easily communicated and stuck in peoples minds. Ultimately, if we were elected in 2019 on a 'slimmed down' package, once COVID hit (or any economic issue really) it would have been justifiable to say "changed circumstances now mean we need to do x, y, and z). We have done it before. Raising taxes soon after the 2001 election having campaigned not to. The worst example is Cameron's austerity, which amounted to something like £6bn in their 2010 manifesto, which somehow transformed into hollowing out the state and adding £1.5 trillion to the national debt.

The big one - being too democratic and too nice.

Before you jump down my throat, political parties have never been true democracies.

Corbyn comes from the Bennite wing which is big on party democracy and generally opposes interventions from the leadership in party democracy questions. This became a massive problem.

First, the party machinery. Far too many people were elected to party offices and the NEC who had glass jaws, based on previous statements, previous beliefs they held or were clearly unable to keep their mouths shut and quietly do their jobs, which would be to transform the party.

Pete Willsman would be just one example: https://www.politicshome.com/news/a...sraeli-embassy-whipped-up-antisemitism-claims

If you want to be a councillor or MP the Labour Party will vet you to see what skeletons you have in your closet. If there is anything there which could be used against you, you won't be chosen, even if you have not acted immorally.

The Momentum slates for the party had a large number of candidates who should have been weeded out. Lord knows there were a tonne of viable and excellent people who never made it to the slate. Corbyn and the party leadership having more control and having a greater say in selections would have made a difference. It would have taken the heat off the NEC members and it would also have allowed them to vote through whatever rules changes you want, instead of every vote highlighting who is voting.

I won't mention anti-semitism except for this - the Forde Report has made clear that all forms of racism have not been dealt with in the party. That clearly pre-dates Starmer and it pre-dates Corbyn. He needed to get out in front of it, and tell Compliance to do their jobs, instead of encouraging anyone and everyone to join. He believes that as MPs can cross political parties, so members of other political parties can join Labour, despite it being against the Party Rulebook. If even 10 or 20 people had been prevented from (re)joining, that would have made a huge difference.

This is getting lengthy now, so I will turn to the PLP.

He was elected on a huge member mandate. He needed to exert control over his MPs from the start. This again may have been affected by his experience and background. It must have been very strange going from always being one voice in the meeting to running it in front of hostile attendees. But Johnson showed what could be done in 2019 - if you do not agree with me (and by extension the membership) then say goodbye to the whip, sit on the backbenches and vote along with the Tories if you dare. By the time of the next election the membership will select your replacement.

But again he was too democratic, and probably also aware of himself being a serial rebel. He was far too passive. I remember 2016 when he was holed up in his office and McDonnell was gatekeeper, not allowing MPs like Tom Watson to see him and speak to him. Again this is optics but it is important. He should have come out, spoken to the press, clearly defended his Brexit stance and told MPs to back him, and if they resigned from the Shadow Cabinet, to have the whip withdrawn too. The 2016 leadership vote showed the members would have backed him.

Small things, big things. They all add up. Would it have been hypocritical for him to demand loyalty from MPs when he was disloyal himself? Massively. Would the press have covered it? Yes. Would it have mattered to the electorate? No, not as much as standing for something and standing by that something.

My manager is actively asking me questions about the contents of this post now so I will leave it there for the moment...

That's a really interesting read, thanks for taking the time to post. I'll read through the links later.
I didn't know that about Attlee either.

 

[Maticmaker]

Corbyn comes from the Bennite wing which is big on party democracy and generally opposes interventions from the leadership in party democracy questions. This became a massive problem.

This is spot on.
Jeremy found himself thrust into something he never truly believed possible... he became the leader of the Labour Party a party which although he was a member, he had disagreed with (profoundly on some occasions) on a range and variety of issues, over many years.

A very honest man, his views had hardly changed over the years, well perhaps he had become more of the International Socialist rather than the 'homegrown' variety, but he never liked the Common market/EEC/EU idea from the get go, if for differing reasons than those in the party who didn't want us to be part of it in 2016. If Jeremy made a genuine mistake it was not owning up and saying he wanted the UK out of the EU, for him 'set ups' and organisation like the EEC/EU, were the essence of the 'rich mans club' which supported the multi-nationals (some of his acolytes even argued it is run by the multi-nationals) as far as governing European trading and ensuring its compliance with Global requirements, the very antithesis of 'international socialism'.

A great socialist advocate, but never cut out to be the leader, much more the guiding spirit.

 

[FireballXL5]

Go Liz!

Foreign Office under Liz Truss has failed to regain global footing, report finds

Institute for Government says morale low, expertise on Russia lacking, and merger with DfID has not worked

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...d-global-footing-under-liz-truss-report-finds

 

[DavidDeSchmikes]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Frosty]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

But apparently if people get pay rises so they can afford to eat it will damage the economy.

 

[CassiusClaymore]

But apparently if people get pay rises so they can afford to eat it will damage the economy.

Yeah people asking for pay rises are causing all this inflation the greedy shits. What happened to just working for a bowl of gruel and a punch in the face?

 

[Rado_N]

The supply of energy to the population should not be a profit making exercise. It’s truly disgusting that this is being allowed to happen. People are having to chose between using electricity or eating, and these cnuts are making billions in profits.

 

[Frosty]

The supply of energy to the population should not be a profit making exercise. It’s truly disgusting that this is being allowed to happen. People are having to chose between using electricity or eating, and these cnuts are making billions in profits.

To illustrate:


EDF energy prices rise by 4% in France compared to 54% in UK

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/edf-energy-prices-rise-4-23618682

EDF has raised its energy prices in France by just 4%, compared to the 54% increase consumers in UK have now been hit with.

While it is largely owned by the French state, EDF - which stands for Électricité de France - is one of the largest electricity suppliers in the UK. The UK's regional electricity companies were privatised in 1990, following the privatisation of British Gas in 1986.

Like all other energy suppliers in the UK, EDF has raised its prices on this side of The Channel after the UK price cap was increased by £693 - or 54% per cent - due to the record increase in global gas prices. However, in France, EDF has been forced to take a £7billion pound hit to protect French households from the price rises.

France's Government capped the domestic price rises at just 4%. French president Emmanuel Macron - who faces elections later this month - also cut tax on electricity and has pledged to subsidise petrol by 15c a litre.

Nice to know the excessive bills British households have to pay are helping to subsidise lower French energy costs.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

To illustrate:


EDF energy prices rise by 4% in France compared to 54% in UK

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/edf-energy-prices-rise-4-23618682



Nice to know the excessive bills British households have to pay are helping to subsidise lower French energy costs.

Not more elections!
Can't be true we're in the EU and it's only because of Brexit the UK government can reduce taxes.

British government lie to electorate shocker.

 

[Jippy]

Go Liz!

Foreign Office under Liz Truss has failed to regain global footing, report finds

Institute for Government says morale low, expertise on Russia lacking, and merger with DfID has not worked

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...d-global-footing-under-liz-truss-report-finds

Good luck finding a write up of that in the DM or Tel.

 

[Frosty]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[maniak]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

In Portugal the main energy company increased their profits 500% in the first trimester of this year, and 250% in the second semester. Their CEO still had the nerve to make a video explaining prices are high because of ukraine. The fecking shamlessness of these people.

 

[neverdie]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

tories polling at 85%. depressing

 

[Dumbstar]

Not more elections!
Can't be true we're in the EU and it's only because of Brexit the UK government can reduce taxes.

British government lie to electorate shocker.

Northern Yorkshire folk and their racist ilk to freeze their nuts off paying to keep Frenchmen warm this winter. Their Gerronwivit vote meant a lot. Helped the whole of Europe by the looks of it.

Sounds harsh but there needs to be tangible pain.

 

[TheGame]

Dorries is despicable:

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[TheGame]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Frosty]

Dorries is despicable:

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

She was too busy defending Cecil Rhodes to do anything about it:

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Oh, and the government decides the recess dates.

 

[Frosty]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

How on earth will that be enforceable?

 

[Frosty]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[RedSky]

This is the problem with Politicians aren't prosecuted for their actions, these bunch of criminals simply keep burning down the protections and laws that protect us. They just keep getting away with it with minimum fuss.

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Braverman is dumb as a rock

 

[Jericholyte2]

Braverman is dumb as a rock

No she isn’t and this is the error most make with these people.

They're not thick, daft, morons or any other antonym, they are lightweight Champaign fascists, deliberately eroding the integrity and validity of institutions and procedures designed to scrutinise the actions of the sitting government.

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

No she isn’t and this is the error most make with these people.

They're not thick, daft, morons or any other antonym, they are lightweight Champaign fascists, deliberately eroding the integrity and validity of institutions and procedures designed to scrutinise the actions of the sitting government.

She really is. She’s not a smart woman.

These people are not smart. They are well educated. That’s it. If we collectively woke up to that fact we’d all be a lot better off.

They believe despicable things and pursue agendas and policy based on them. There are no original thoughts. They’re not creative. They’re not solving problems. They’re just shitty people doing shitty things.

 

[Jericholyte2]

She really is. She’s not a smart woman.

These people are not smart. They are well educated. That’s it. If we collectively woke up to that fact we’d all be a lot better off.

They believe despicable things and pursue agendas and policy based on them. There are no original thoughts. They’re not creative. They’re not solving problems. They’re just shitty people doing shitty things.

Yes, but that makes them cnuts, not idiots. They have had a mandate over the last 40-50yrs of othering, pushing RW agendas, and squeezing every drop out of the workers whilst systematically destroying systems of oversight and scrutiny.

And we as a nation keep voting them in to power…

So who is the greater fool?

 

[Frosty]

Yes, but that makes them cnuts, not idiots. They have had a mandate over the last 40-50yrs of othering, pushing RW agendas, and squeezing every drop out of the workers whilst systematically destroying systems of oversight and scrutiny.

And we as a nation keep voting them in to power…

So who is the greater fool?

First past the post doesn't help one bit.

The Tories got 43.6% of the vote at the last election on a 67.3% turnout.

My useless maths aside, that''s what, 30% of the entire electorate voting Blue?

The reason they hate electoral reform is that they know it all but guarantees a progressive majority in this country.

 

[Frosty]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

So if your cancer isn't caught early, it is the fault of nurses for asking for enough money to eat. Not the £37 BILLION wasted on test and trace.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-test-trace-dido-harding-report-b1814714.html

 

[Jericholyte2]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

So if your cancer isn't caught early, it is the fault of nurses for asking for enough money to eat. Not the £37 BILLION wasted on test and trace.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-test-trace-dido-harding-report-b1814714.html

It’s happening across the public sector with the 5% pay rise.

Staff are getting the pay rise but no new money is being given to the institutions to pay for it. So that means either staff redundancies and / or reduction of services.

 

[Jericholyte2]

First past the post doesn't help one bit.

The Tories got 43.6% of the vote at the last election on a 67.3% turnout.

My useless maths aside, that''s what, 30% of the entire electorate voting Blue?

The reason they hate electoral reform is that they know it all but guarantees a progressive majority in this country.

But again that’s a product of Tory, RW rhetoric. They and their media partners constantly push narratives about ‘Labour causing the 2008 crash’ and ‘the perils of proportional representation’ in order to keep themselves in power.

They are smart, malignant forces who hide behind images of incompetence in order to appear relatable.

 

[Frosty]

But again that’s a product of Tory, RW rhetoric. They and their media partners constantly push narratives about ‘Labour causing the 2008 crash’ and ‘the perils of proportional representation’ in order to keep themselves in power.

They are smart, malignant forces who hide behind images of incompetence in order to appear relatable.

I agree with that, but I would just add that Labour were very, very naive after the 2010 election. Both Milibands spent a good few months discussing the Iraq War (the vote on which would not have been won without Tory support), and allowed Cameron to create and substantiate that media narrative.

 

[Maticmaker]

First past the post doesn't help one bit.

It does when your Party are the FPTP!

The one strong point of this system is whoever achieves that objective gets first crack at forming a Government and if they have the overall working majority they can start to implement their manifesto. Power is truly in the hands of the people or if you prefer 'democracy'.... any other system that relies on parties 'scratching around' to reach agreement with others tends to mean that deals are done behind closed doors, or as they use to say in 'smoke-filled rooms'. Where the public only gets to know the final outcome and everyone taking part is 'whipped' into secrecy.

Proportional representation sounds a fairer bet, but in its purest form, would mean umpteen smaller parties all trumpeting their own requirements,' talk-talk,' beer and sandwiches all round and gatherings which would make the recent party-gate events look mild and there would still be a good chance that nothing ever got done.

Its true that under FPTP, having 80+ seat majorities are also to be decried. Thankfully Boris didn't get to implement the worse excesses of his overwhelming margin of power, but only because the red-wall Tory MP's had one eye on the next GE.

To exercise power you have to win it, to win it you have to 'follow the Herd' otherwise they will leave you behind. Brexit has given many a taste for 'exercising their muscles' not because of its objectives, but how it operated, i.e. a massive pressure group made up mostly by people who felt (albeit for different reasons) completely p***ed-off they threatened to apply political 'weight' at a single point 'weak point' (in this case) the heart of the Tory party who realised they could be obliterated if they didn't grab the Brexit mantle from Farage and Co. Opportunists such as Farage and Boris read these signs ages before the rest of us.

At last Keir Starmer seems to realise that he cannot afford to let it happen again and is waking up to the necessity of''walking the line'.

 

[Frosty]

It does when your Party are the FPTP!

The one strong point of this system is whoever achieves that objective gets first crack at forming a Government and if they have the overall working majority they can start to implement their manifesto. Power is truly in the hands of the people or if you prefer 'democracy'.... any other system that relies on parties 'scratching around' to reach agreement with others tends to mean that deals are done behind closed doors, or as they use to say in 'smoke-filled rooms'. Where the public only gets to know the final outcome and everyone taking part is 'whipped' into secrecy.

Proportional representation sounds a fairer bet, but in its purest form, would mean umpteen smaller parties all trumpeting their own requirements,' talk-talk,' beer and sandwiches all round and gatherings which would make the recent party-gate events look mild and there would still be a good chance that nothing ever got done.

Its true that under FPTP, having 80+ seat majorities are also to be decried. Thankfully Boris didn't get to implement the worse excesses of his overwhelming margin of power, but only because the red-wall Tory MP's had one eye on the next GE.

To exercise power you have to win it, to win it you have to 'follow the Herd' otherwise they will leave you behind. Brexit has given many a taste for 'exercising their muscles' not because of its objectives, but how it operated, i.e. a massive pressure group made up mostly by people who felt (albeit for different reasons) completely p***ed-off they threatened to apply political 'weight' at a single point 'weak point' (in this case) the heart of the Tory party who realised they could be obliterated if they didn't grab the Brexit mantle from Farage and Co. Opportunists such as Farage and Boris read these signs ages before the rest of us.

At last Keir Starmer seems to realise that he cannot afford to let it happen again and is waking up to the necessity of''walking the line'.

To be fair, we already had two parties scratching around and making a deal behind closed doors after the 2010 election.

And in terms of smoke filled rooms, the electorate don't get to decide on the manifestos, which are agreed in private, and we already have a bunch of electoral deals in FPTP which operate today. The UKIP/Brexit Party/Tory deals, especially in 2019, and the Lib Dems and Labour basically field paper candidates and don't campaign when they are in a constituency where one of the two can beat the Tories but not the other.

Electoral reform is nothing without constitutional reform to ensure that the excesses of the Johnson era (and others!) are constrained by statute which will also give the courts power to ensure they are not repeated. We already rely far too much on partisan MPs putting the country's interests above their own in contraining executive power.

PR would ensure voices across the spectrum have a say in government. One of the main issues of Brexit was that 30% of the electorate in the centre could decide who would rule for the 100% and we had a lot of disaffected voices.

 

[Jericholyte2]

I was speaking to my local (Tory) MP, Simon Clarke, this week about the state of the country. The man who, when Liz Truss becomes PM is likely to become our new Chancelor of the Exchequer, is STILL BLAMING LABOUR for the state of the country in 2022!

With that in mind I’d like to highlight a few legacies of the last 12yrs of Tory ‘leadership’:

FOOD BANKS: In 2010, this country had less than 100 registered Food Banks. In 2022 we have more Food Banks than McDonalds restaurants! Not only that, we now have Food Banks rejecting potatoes and fresh vegetables, because people can’t afford the energy to boil them!

BABY BANKS: These have started to appear in recent years. Identical to Food Banks except to provide baby products to those people / families that can’t afford then!

WARM BANKS: I only heard about this on Friday and it absolutely floored me! Councils and charities are putting together plans to open up public buildings that have heating to the general public, so they can have places to get / stay warm when they find themselves unable to afford to heat their homes.

A reminder, we are apparently one of the wealthiest countries in the world! But according to Liz Truss what we should be most worried about are cheese imports.

To quote her, “THIS.IS.A.DISGRACE!”

 

[Frosty]

I was speaking to my local (Tory) MP, Simon Clarke, this week about the state of the country. The man who, when Liz Truss becomes PM is likely to become our new Chancelor of the Exchequer, is STILL BLAMING LABOUR for the state of the country in 2022!

With that in mind I’d like to highlight a few legacies of the last 12yrs of Tory ‘leadership’:

FOOD BANKS: In 2010, this country had less than 100 registered Food Banks. In 2022 we have more Food Banks than McDonalds restaurants! Not only that, we now have Food Banks rejecting potatoes and fresh vegetables, because people can’t afford the energy to boil them!

BABY BANKS: These have started to appear in recent years. Identical to Food Banks except to provide baby products to those people / families that can’t afford then!

WARM BANKS: I only heard about this on Friday and it absolutely floored me! Councils and charities are putting together plans to open up public buildings that have heating to the general public, so they can have places to get / stay warm when they find themselves unable to afford to heat their homes.

A reminder, we are apparently one of the wealthiest countries in the world! But according to Liz Truss what we should be most worried about are cheese imports.

To quote her, “THIS.IS.A.DISGRACE!”

David Cameron in June 2010 promising to deal with Britain''s massive national debt of £770 billion: https://conservative-speeches.sayit.mysociety.org/speech/601466

At the end of 2021 UK general government gross debt was £2,382.8 billion, equivalent to 102.8% of gross domestic product (GDP).

Apparently adding £1.6 trillion to the national debt whilst hollowing out public services and overseeing stagnant growth for 12 years is the last Labour Government's fault.

 

[golden_blunder]

I was speaking to my local (Tory) MP, Simon Clarke, this week about the state of the country. The man who, when Liz Truss becomes PM is likely to become our new Chancelor of the Exchequer, is STILL BLAMING LABOUR for the state of the country in 2022!

With that in mind I’d like to highlight a few legacies of the last 12yrs of Tory ‘leadership’:

FOOD BANKS: In 2010, this country had less than 100 registered Food Banks. In 2022 we have more Food Banks than McDonalds restaurants! Not only that, we now have Food Banks rejecting potatoes and fresh vegetables, because people can’t afford the energy to boil them!

BABY BANKS: These have started to appear in recent years. Identical to Food Banks except to provide baby products to those people / families that can’t afford then!

WARM BANKS: I only heard about this on Friday and it absolutely floored me! Councils and charities are putting together plans to open up public buildings that have heating to the general public, so they can have places to get / stay warm when they find themselves unable to afford to heat their homes.

A reminder, we are apparently one of the wealthiest countries in the world! But according to Liz Truss what we should be most worried about are cheese imports.

To quote her, “THIS.IS.A.DISGRACE!”

Bloody hell! This kind of thing should be in double pages in the tabloids or plastered over bill boards by led by donkeys. Utterly disgrace every point.

 

[Maticmaker]

And in terms of smoke filled rooms, the electorate don't get to decide on the manifestos,

Yes they do, they get to vote for them (or not) at the election.
However what voters are not told at the election is that when parties have to negotiate for power/seat at the table (whether in smoke-filled rooms or not) about the terms of the 'horse trading' that goes on and so nobody outside the room knows the real price paid. How many of the Lib-Dem voters would have changed their minds if they knew their prize policy on University fees was to be scuppered, so their leaders got a seat at the Government table.