#104

Yeah, I had hoped that the reshuffle might be causing a temporary lack of action, but Thornberry’s hasn’t been moved from shadow foreign secretary, so there’s no excuse on this one.

#105

Ah, fair enough if so.

I know his entire political career has been spent within the far-left coalition (inc. SWP/SWP fronts/sister orgs etc.) but I don’t understand his judgement on speaking at something that the SWP is involved in. He doesn’t need to shore up relations on the far left, nor reassure anyone as to his campaigning thrust, so why bother?

#106

Because he believes in anti-racism?

#107

Yes. We know that, EVERYone knows that! He hasn’t seemingly slowed down his speaking at rallies etc. agenda since becoming Labour leader. And that’s fine, because that’s who he is, but he could’ve just sat this one out and saved himself a load of silly bother y’know? Corbyn’s image amongst the sympathetic but sceptical doesn’t need an extra layer of murk on top. Like I said earlier - it’s poor judgement.

#108

Some people do attend rallies because they believe in the cause, not just how it will play with opinion polls.

#109

Think I just heard a blood vessel go in Asita’s head.

1 Like
#110

But now he attends these rallies as Leader of The Labour Party. And as such he has additional responsibilities of judgement re: how his associations impact on the electoral viability of the Labour Party and how they play amongst their coalition of voters and supporters. It can’t be explained away that easily.

Not sure why we’re arguing the toss on this when we’re essentially in agreement re: associating with the SWP to be honest.

1 Like
#111

Because you’re suggesting that he should stop attending rallies in support of causes that he believes in if it won’t increase his appeal among swing voters.

That’s separate from the SWP thing.

#112

No. Firstly I don’t think he should attend rallies co-convened by the SWP on moral grounds. Secondly, from this, I was arguing there was no practical or political benefit to either himself or the Labour Party for attending it. A double whammy of “why bother?”.

You agreed with him not sharing a platform with David Cameron regarding staying in the EU because of the potential political consequences for him/The Labour Party for doing so even though it was in support of a cause he (supposedly) believed in. You said so yourself.

You can’t pick and choose which pragmatic political judgements you find acceptable in these instances.

#113

No, I also said that sharing a platform with Cameron would do the Remain campaign harm. It was critical to the campaign that Corbyn was not seen as part of the political establishment.

#114

Well this is now a separate topic altogether but, do you think that was successful? As in, did Corbyn inspire more of the ‘Labour vote’ to vote Remain owing to his distance from the official campaign? Not seen any analysis of that angle myself.

#115

Part of the problem was that the conservative party squabbles and the messaging from their sides of the debate dominated the media - including the idea that Brexit was the anti-establishment vote.

I haven’t seen much analysis of it either, but don’t forget that Tim Farron and Nicola Sturgeon could only convince 70% of their parties’ supporters to vote Remain after sharing platforms with conservative party leaders - which is only marginally better than Corbyn - and they are the most pro-EU parties and gained the most success when being regarded as the anti-establishment vote.

#116

Yeah. I’m not sure how much difference it would’ve made in the end but in the week before polling day only 2/3rds of Labour voters knew what Labour’s position was on the referendum was. Various reasons for that and it’s not really good enough all in but, like I said, I don’t think it would’ve swung the result. I don’t think Corbyn being the ‘establishment’ or ‘non-establishment’ candidate would’ve made a difference either way.

#117

When it comes to Labour, the Guardian is tackling the key issues:

#118

So three weeks after his re-election, the PLP decide to throw their toys out of the pram and turn every single issue into a red line.

#119

Literally no benefit to that whatsoever.

#120

depressing

#121

ITT: momentos annoyed that momentum is getting a drubbing in the press

#122

I’m trying to think how this would help the PLP from a tactical point of view, and I keep drawing a blank.

If I were a Labour Party member sympathetic to the PLP, I would be looking at the situation re Brexit and the increasing authoritarianism, and I would be wondering why the PLP have deemed Corbyn a bigger problem than the government. It’s just bad politics. They botched the leadership challenge, they’ve botched being a constant pain in the arse, and every time they take a swipe at him it only seems to strengthen his position with the grassroots of the party. Additionally, it all makes them look incredibly incompetent and unfit for office - I’d say they’re probably less appealing to a heartland Tory than Corbyn at this point.

The smart thing to do would’ve been to pretend to make nice and work together to stomp out the Tories on Brexit and generally raise hell in Parliament and at PMQs, while readying a coup attempt once the dust has settled. Idiots.

#123

Exactly.

Two things that make the electorate think you’re unfit for government are constant infighting and looking like rank amateurs. Party members sympathetic to the PLP need to make it clear that this behaviour is dragging Labour down just when they had formed a united front and were making headway against the government.

It’s either deliberate or incompetent.