Westminster Politics

[rimaldo]

truss panicked, looked to someone else before finally moving towards the stricken corpse and taking action. that’s not the behaviour of a leader.

 

[rimaldo]

Guess she couldn't stand listening to truss anymore.

took the easy way out and hammered herself unconscious with her clipboard. coward.

 

[calodo2003]

Damn, that sure didn’t sound like a stuck landing.

 

[Klopper76]

Truss going after trade unions. Could see even more strikes in the future if she succeeds.

 

[Rado_N]

Truss going after trade unions. Could see even more strikes in the future if she succeeds.

They’ll probably try and make them illegal.

 

[Attila]

not her biggest fan, far from it, but wish her a speedy recovery

 

[lsd]

I have the feeling that as time goes on, and the impact of Brexit on the UK's economy and the Union becomes clearer and clearer, he will be viewed much more negatively than he is now.

Just like Eden is synonymous with Suez and the destruction of British hard power, Cameron will be unable to escape from the fact he opened the door to a tidal wave of shit and then quickly resigned, made millions and left the mess to others to clear up.

I'm not sure what Cameron could have done. Having the referendum was a vote winner for him same as the Scottish Referendum and that worked for him

His mistake was trusting the public and the polls that all went for remain but had it come off he would still be in power now.

When the public showed their stupidity and voted to leave he was done and he knew it so he quit.

He had no other option other than resigning as he didn't believe in Brexit had he stayed it would have been even worse than Theresa May's reign.

It's weird to think that in both Referendums the result was not what was predicted.

Boris going from remain to leave once ge thought that would get him into the hot seat was far worse

 

[lsd]

truss panicked, looked to someone else before finally moving towards the stricken corpse and taking action. that’s not the behaviour of a leader.

Did she look to Rishi? If so it doesn't bode well for her leadership qualities

 

[Klopper76]

They’ll probably try and make them illegal.

Who are they going to get to work these jobs if they arrest everyone who strikes?

 

[Rado_N]

Who are they going to get to work these jobs if they arrest everyone who strikes?

Worrying about the long term isn’t exactly Tory strategy

 

[Longshanks]

I have the feeling that as time goes on, and the impact of Brexit on the UK's economy and the Union becomes clearer and clearer, he will be viewed much more negatively than he is now.

Just like Eden is synonymous with Suez and the destruction of British hard power, Cameron will be unable to escape from the fact he opened the door to a tidal wave of shit and then quickly resigned, made millions and left the mess to others to clear up.

All he did was the inevitable, euro skepticism was growing and becoming a more and more toxic subject especially within his own party it was a problem that wasn't going to go away and needed dealing with one way or another.

I suspect he was really quite confident of winning the referendum, let it not be forgotten that he led the remain campaign as a staunch remainer.

The real villains are farage, bo jo and the right wing press for there xenophobic post brexit field of dreams campaign that was full of complete and utter lies and the 17.2 million people that believed it and voted for it.

Unfortunately as a country we voted for a referendum, then voted to leave the EU, and then gave the leader of the leave campaign a huge majority in government to 'get on with brexit'.

Cameron may have opened the door, but he then stood in front of it saying you don't want to go in there, while farage and co stood the other side of the door promising sweets and unicorns, we as an electorate bought it and didn't just tentatively take a step towards the door, we chopped Camerons head off and ram raided our way through the door to where we are now.

We as an electorate are the ones who voted for this mess, and we are the ones who will have to pay for the clean up.

 

[Reiver]

Truss going after trade unions. Could see even more strikes in the future if she succeeds.

Ticks all the boxes for her - makes her look like Thatcher; the Right of the Tory Party love trashing the Unions; the Right Wing Press love it; unfortunately, a fair amount of the general public hate the Unions too.
As if the Unions have anything to do with the state the country's in. Unfortunately Starmer will probably stand back and let her get away with it (if she becomes PM)

 

[jeff_goldblum]

All he did was the inevitable, euro skepticism was growing and becoming a more and more toxic subject especially within his own party it was a problem that wasn't going to go away and needed dealing with one way or another.

He called the referendum because he was facing challenges to his leadership of the Tory Party from Eurosceptic backbenchers and thought winning the referendum would shut them up and secure his position. Even if things had turned out the way he wanted, he'd go down in history as someone who spent a massive amount of public money and gambled the future of the country for personal political gain. The fact that he lost the referendum makes him a fecking idiot as well as an amoral careerist cnut.

 

[lsd]

He called the referendum because he was facing challenges to his leadership of the Tory from Eurosceptic backbenchers and thought winning the referendum would shut them up and secure his position. Even if things had turned out the way he wanted, he'd go down in history as someone who spent a massive amount of public money and gambled the future of the country for personal political gain. The fact that he lost the referendum makes him a fecking idiot as well as an amoral careerist cnut.

He didn't lose the referendum we lost it as it was the public who voted.

Again his mistake was trusting people to do what the polls suggested they would.

You can't blame him for the majority of Britain's being racist and dumb as after all it's how the Tories get into power

 

[Jippy]

He called the referendum because he was facing challenges to his leadership of the Tory Party from Eurosceptic backbenchers and thought winning the referendum would shut them up and secure his position. Even if things had turned out the way he wanted, he'd go down in history as someone who spent a massive amount of public money and gambled the future of the country for personal political gain. The fact that he lost the referendum makes him a fecking idiot as well as an amoral careerist cnut.

Complete arrogant fecking idiot who gambled the country's future to try and settle Tory in-fighting. That actually has to make him worse than Johnson, if that's possible.

 

[Buster15]

Complete arrogant fecking idiot who gambled the country's future to try and settle Tory in-fighting. That actually has to make him worse than Johnson, if that's possible.

He was extremely arrogant in that he convinced himself and even more tried to convince us all that he could just tell the EU that unless the UK got what he was asking for, we would leave. All he kept saying was that they had to reform.
But he really didn't know what he was asking for and as a result, the EU just ignored him.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

I'm not sure what Cameron could have done. Having the referendum was a vote winner for him same as the Scottish Referendum and that worked for him

His mistake was trusting the public and the polls that all went for remain but had it come off he would still be in power now.

When the public showed their stupidity and voted to leave he was done and he knew it so he quit.

He had no other option other than resigning as he didn't believe in Brexit had he stayed it would have been even worse than Theresa May's reign.

It's weird to think that in both Referendums the result was not what was predicted.

Boris going from remain to leave once ge thought that would get him into the hot seat was far worse

He wasn't prepared for a leave vote so he shouldn't have had the referendum until he was prepared for the outcomes. He also should have had a minimum threshold percentage for change. It was not thought out.

Calling the referendum just because it was a vote winner shows his lack of integrity; poor planning and catastrophic leadership.

He had no idea, the stupidity was on him.

As a leader you need to be prepared whatever the outcome. And that's before even considering the 6 years of brutal austerity and targeting the sick and disabled with thousands dying after being labelled "fit to work". Terrible PM. Terrible party. Bringing their internal party division's out into the public.

 

[Wibble]

John Major might be good at calling his party out now but he was a weak PM. And to be honest I can not really remember that much about him apart from his alleged affair with Edwina Curry. Rather him than me.

I think everyone including him was surprised that the Tories won after the ousted Thatcher. Bland but at least not pure evil.

 

[Mart1974]

Bloody hell!

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet gone, what did it say please?

 

[jeff_goldblum]

He didn't lose the referendum we lost it as it was the public who voted.

Again his mistake was trusting people to do what the polls suggested they would.

You can't blame him for the majority of Britain's being racist and dumb as after all it's how the Tories get into power

In what sense didn't he lose? He called the referendum with the intention of Remain winning and securing his position. Remain lost and he had to resign.

On the last paragraph, Cameron, as with many of the most high-profile Remainer politicians, is absolutely to blame for his part in spreading the lies and normalising the rhetoric which brought the likes of Farage into the political mainstream and formed the basis of the Leave campaign. Both major parties spent the 3 elections leading up to the referendum pandering to anti-immigrant sentiment and scapegoating the EU for their own failings in government, only then to turn round and expect people to take them seriously when they went out to bat for Remain.

Brexit was as much a failing of the 'moderate' wings of the main political parties as it was a triumph for the right.

 

[711]

Brexit was as much a failing of the 'moderate' wings of the main political parties as it was a triumph for the right.

Corbyn and McDonnell were in charge of Labour, so it wasn't just about 'moderate' wings or the right.

 

[lsd]

Corbyn and McDonnell were in charge of Labour, so it wasn't just about 'moderate' wings or the right.

Might have helped Corbyn's cause of he ever came out and made an opinion on Credit instead of always standing there offering nothing.


The fact he failed to get into power on back of the biggest chaos in recent history was woeful

 

[Maticmaker]

Might have helped Corbyn's cause of he ever came out and made an opinion on Credit instead of always standing there offering nothing.


The fact he failed to get into power on back of the biggest chaos in recent history was woeful

The problem for Jeremy was he belong to the old Tony Benn school of the left that believed we should never have joined the 'common market'/EEC, in the first place.

 

[ThehatchetMan]

Lsd loves the sun

 

[lsd]

Lsd loves the sun

No I am labour but the problem for me was David Miliband should have been leading the party challenging Cameron but his brother messed that up.

I believe David would have won and spared us everything that's happened since so in my view the person to really blame for Brexit and everything that came be with it is Ed Milliband

He was never leadership material and just the unions puppet who was exposed for the idiot he is way to soon.

 

[jeff_goldblum]

Corbyn and McDonnell were in charge of Labour, so it wasn't just about 'moderate' wings or the right.

Corbyn and McDonnell aren't really relevant to the point I'm making. To their credit, it wasn't the Labour left who spent the decade prior to the referendum parroting far-right rhetoric on immigration, it was the 'moderates'. To my knowledge, the first major figure to propose the points-based immigration system the current government is bringing in was Tony Blair in his 2004 conference speech. Around that time he said that cutting down on 'bogus' asylum claims was his number one domestic priority. New Labour in government shifted massively to the right on immigration after 2001 and, in doing so, fundamentally changed the national debate from 'pro-immigration vs. anti-immigration' to 'anti-immigration vs. more anti-immigration'. The reason Farage became a central figure in British politics is because by the late-2000s his views on immigration weren't too different to what Labour and the Tories were saying.

Leave won the referendum using arguments which 'moderates' in Labour and the Tories had been using for years. All Farage had to do was point out the hypocrisy of talking tough on immigration whilst being party to Freedom of Movement via EU membership.

 

[RedSky]

The problem for Jeremy was he belong to the old Tony Benn school of the left that believed we should never have joined the 'common market'/EEC, in the first place.

As soon as he started to mention taxing the rich that was the nail in the coffin for Corbyn. All of the media went against him and at that point you're doomed. The media holds the cards in this country, you have to attempt to keep some of them on side.

 

[RedSky]

Leave won the referendum using arguments

That and lying about pretty much everything. That also helped.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

In what sense didn't he lose? He called the referendum with the intention of Remain winning and securing his position. Remain lost and he had to resign.

On the last paragraph, Cameron, as with many of the most high-profile Remainer politicians, is absolutely to blame for his part in spreading the lies and normalising the rhetoric which brought the likes of Farage into the political mainstream and formed the basis of the Leave campaign. Both major parties spent the 3 elections leading up to the referendum pandering to anti-immigrant sentiment and scapegoating the EU for their own failings in government, only then to turn round and expect people to take them seriously when they went out to bat for Remain.

Brexit was as much a failing of the 'moderate' wings of the main political parties as it was a triumph for the right.

Absolutely.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

Corbyn and McDonnell were in charge of Labour, so it wasn't just about 'moderate' wings or the right.

The poster was referring to the previous 3 General elections before the referendum.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

Might have helped Corbyn's cause of he ever came out and made an opinion on Credit instead of always standing there offering nothing.


The fact he failed to get into power on back of the biggest chaos in recent history was woeful

Not helped by being sabotaged by the "moderate" wing of the Labour party.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

No I am labour but the problem for me was David Miliband should have been leading the party challenging Cameron but his brother messed that up.

I believe David would have won and spared us everything that's happened since so in my view the person to really blame for Brexit and everything that came be with it is Ed Milliband

He was never leadership material and just the unions puppet who was exposed for the idiot he is way to soon.

Yes, let's blame the man who had nothing to do with the actual problem for our problems.

Which media outlet has got you doing those hardcore mental gymnastics for you to come to that bizarre conclusion?

 

[Sweet Square]

Still talking about David Miliband in 2022 is really something.

 

[ThehatchetMan]

No I am labour but the problem for me was David Miliband should have been leading the party challenging Cameron but his brother messed that up.

I believe David would have won and spared us everything that's happened since so in my view the person to really blame for Brexit and everything that came be with it is Ed Milliband

He was never leadership material and just the unions puppet who was exposed for the idiot he is way to soon.

For a labour supporter you seem to hold Labour accountable for alot of things they had little to no control over. Is Corbyn to blame for everything the last few years also on the basis that he lost an election?

And in regards to your previous post about Corbyn. Corbyn didn't lose the election due to any of his own doing. His election was lost mainly due to the media smear campaign as well as the reasons outlined in the Corbyn report too.

Sure what about Ed Milliband who had a smear campaign due to how he eats a bacon sandwich. It doesn't matter who the individual is, the right wing media moguls will peddle any sort of propoganda they can to influence the naive in society.

 

[Frosty]

For a labour supporter you seem to hold Labour accountable for alot of things they had little to no control over. Is Corbyn to blame for everything the last few years also on the basis that he lost an election?

And in regards to your previous post about Corbyn. Corbyn didn't lose the election due to any of his own doing. His election was lost mainly due to the media smear campaign as well as the reasons outlined in the Corbyn report too.

Sure what about Ed Milliband who had a smear campaign due to how he eats a bacon sandwich. It doesn't matter who the individual is, the right wing media moguls will peddle any sort of propoganda they can to influence the naive in society.

Mainly is the key word. Any future candidate from the left needs to closely study the Corbyn years and make sure that they do not repeat the mistakes that were made.

 

[ThehatchetMan]

Mainly is the key word. Any future candidate from the left needs to closely study the Corbyn years and make sure that they do not repeat the mistakes that were made.

And which mistakes do you believe Corbyn made?

 

[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.