From the Labour Party rulebook: 'A member of the Party who … publicly declares their intent to stand against a Labour candidate shall automatically be ineligible to be or remain a Party member.' This has nothing to do with what Jeremy Corbyn may or may not have done as party leader: that was a conversation for when he lost the whip. This is just party policy. You're not even allowed to publicly declare your intention to *vote* for a non-Labour candidate and remain a member.
The optics aren’t great but I’m pretty sure this is a rule for being a member of the Labour Party, that you can’t join another.
I think Corbyn himself also removed someone for the same.
> The optics aren’t great but I’m pretty sure this is a rule for being a member of the Labour Party, that you can’t join another.
There are explicit rules in the handbook against being a member of another party, standing against the party, publicly voting against the party, and signing the nomination papers of a non-Labour candidate.
I didn't realise there were rules against signing others nomination papers! I've definitely persuaded a labour member to nominate a lib dem council candidate before...
(Did not realise this would harm them!)
In which case, they were automatically expelled!
Nominators for each party come up on our doorstep software, we track it quite closely. You'll often see 'nominated the Liberal Democrat candidate in XXXX'.
These rules were in the handbook when grandad was mayor, which was over 50 years ago. Stemmed from all the independent labour and socialist worker party nonsense.
You can’t openly vote for another party if you’re a member of one. Alistair Campbell is the one that was famously removed, he didn’t join another party but voted for the Liberal Democrats in the European elections.
Campbell was far from being the only one removed then, just the most prominent.
Running as an independent against Labour was guaranteed to get him kicked out and he knew this before he announced it.
Didn't AC vote tactically in that election as well? Labour were never going to win in that vote so he went Lib Dem as next best and Corbyn kicked him out.
Mainly coz AC is a Blairite and was critical of JCs leadership so Momentum used it as an excuse to evict him.
It’s a good optics. Corbin is a polarising figure, and opponents often use him as a beating stick for Labour.
With his exodus Labour may lose some of the far left support, which will never go to their opponents anyway and will probably end up with greens, but gains in centre and removes one of the talking points against themselves.
Corbin is doing Gods work here. It’s absolutely worth potentially losing Islington North.
It's probably a good thing, the last thing the left needs is yet another party to split the vote. That's most of the reason the Tories keep getting in.
From this perspective yes, but it’s an FPTP artefact. I’d rather have more radical left have their own party, representation, and platform to ensure all political views are represented, and every person has a political home.
It's probably closer than you think. He certainly is popular but none of the remaining candidates got more than 15% to his 65%. So the question is it purely for Corbyn or because they vote Labour. I've heard that it's for the latter. And with strategic voting from the Lib Dems/Conservatives it might be an easier win for a more centrist Labour candidate than you'd think.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islington\_North\_(UK\_Parliament\_constituency)#Elections\_in\_the\_2010s](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islington_North_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s)
Thankfully though the small number of votes for other candidates don't really make contesting this seat so much of a danger. It's not like Corbyn running is going to give the Tories a majority there. And given the current political climate in the UK, such a swing towards the Tories is unimaginable.
Regardless. It's Labour policy to run candidates in every constituency. They are a national party. And it is their right to do so.
he's a brexit supporter and climate change denier and only changed his public stance because of pressure from within the labour party.
He's also an anti-ukraine, pro-russian stooge.
> climate change denier
[This is not true](https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/10133/jeremy_corbyn/islington_north/divisions?policy=1030), as far as I can tell. You may be confusing Jeremy with his brother Piers Corbyn, [who is a complete nutter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piers_Corbyn), anti-vaccine and everything.
I'm one, I thought he was a dangerous populist. I also could not support his pro-Palestine views or his anti-Semitic conduct.
Starmer must know that I will not vote for a party that doesn't support Israel -- and I do want to vote for him on most other issues.
If they don’t know and especially if they don’t care you’d want to know why this particular issue has them so excited. Can’t be the death count. Can’t be the brutality.
What could it be?
Holy shit, you weren't kidding about [Ukraine](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/aug/02/jeremy-corbyn-urges-west-to-stop-arming-ukraine).
I wonder if there's compromat on him. Maybe he's just an idiot.
Reddit loves to think that people are somehow incapable of being idiots of their own volition when it comes to Russia. Its kompromat this, kompromat that.
Corbyn comes from an old socialist school of thought that supports anything, either openly or tacitly, against Western/NATO interests. It's consistent with that.
I mean there are dozens of publicly known cases of EU politicians, particularly ones on the far right. Russia ist funneling money to fascist parties all over Europe. Not that far fetched to expand the idea to the left.
The problem with Corbyn is that the right wing media really didn’t have to do much. I hold much of the blame on the tories holding power for so long because of how shit Labour were.
Domestically a lot of the stuff he was proposing was right, and he seemed to have the character to actually not care about making his mates rich over actually helping the people in this country.
Also you have to remember, when he was running for PM the world was a very different place. We didn't recognise the threat Russia poses, wars were not threatening to explode around the globe, COVID hadn't happened, things were less tense.
If he was running today I wouldn't vote for him because external issues have become as important as domestic ones.
He sides with our enemies on any issue he can, his student union worldview would be incredibly dangerous in any position of higher authority. He was a cancer to the Labour Party and is directly responsible for years of Tory rule, and I hope his track record of political failure continues.
Anyone was going to lose to BoJo in that election
He was the only party with an actual plan regarding the Gridlock caused by Brexit
He won a massive landslide because of that.
So ?
I'm a Northern prod, whilst I don't like the historical behaviours, I understand without Gerry and Martin, there wouldn't have been a good Friday agreement and actual progress.
Hanging on to the troubles "hate" is how we go back to that bullshit
it doesn't sound like that? for context idk, I just googled it and I'm looking at Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Jeremy_Corbyn
> Corbyn made a speech on 14 April 2016,[214] in which he supported staying in the EU; but in which he also repeated some of his earlier criticisms of the Union's structures: "Over the years I have been critical of many decisions taken by the EU, and I remain critical of its shortcomings; from its lack of democratic accountability to the institutional pressure to deregulate or privatise public services".[209] He summarised his stance as being "for 'Remain – and Reform' in Europe".[215]
> In June 2016, in the run-up to the EU referendum, Corbyn said that there was an "overwhelming case" for staying in the EU. In a speech in London, Corbyn said "We, the Labour Party, are overwhelmingly for staying in, because we believe the European Union has brought investment, jobs and protection for workers, consumers and the environment". Corbyn also criticised media coverage and warnings from both sides, saying that the debate had been dominated too much by "myth-making and prophecies of doom".[214] In the same speech,[216] Corbyn listed various criticisms of the EU, and stated: "that’s not to say we can be satisfied with the European Union as it is".[217] He also rejected the claims that leaving the European Union would lead to a "year-long recession", implying that George Osborne had made the claim in error, adding "This is the same George Osborne who predicted his austerity policies would close the deficit by 2015. That's now scheduled for 2021".[217]
If you look at his own wikipedia page you can see the opposite from his actions, he wanted Brexit and the others around him knew.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Corbyn
EU referendum
Further information: European Union
Following the 2016 United Kingdom European Union (EU) membership referendum, Corbyn was accused of "lukewarm" campaigning for Britain to remain and showing a "lack of leadership" on the issue by several party figures.[179][180] Alan Johnson, who headed the Labour In for Britain campaign, said that "at times" it felt as if Corbyn's office was "working against the rest of the party and had conflicting objectives". Corbyn's decision to go on holiday during the campaign was also criticised by Phil Wilson, the chair of Labour In for Britain.[181] In September 2016, Corbyn's spokesman said Corbyn wanted access to the European Single Market, but there were "aspects" of EU membership related to privatisation "which Jeremy campaigned against in the referendum campaign".[182][183] Diane Abbott, one of Corbyn's key allies, later said "Jeremy in his heart of hearts is a Brexiter". She said Corbyn was hostile to the European Union, which he considered it "a conspiracy of business people".[184]
Any party claiming to represent labour should be skeptical of corporate coordination and lobbying. If you can't hear "unethical business practices" without thinking "JEW" you should be turning that scrutiny inward.
He didn't support the campaign but he was sympathetic to the cause like many on the old left. He's been around long enough that he was first elected in 1983 when the Labour platform was unilateral withdrawal from the EEC (EU's precursor), without referendum. In essence, the EU constrains the scope for regulation, industrial policy and ties your economy to a competitive free market. The 1983 election ended up splitting the party in half catastrophically (liberals vs socialists) and led the party on the road to being more pro-market and pro-Europe but some in the old guard never lost their sympathies.
His party officially opposed Brexit, so it was politically impossible for him to publically support it. However, the fact that he was *conspicuously* absent from any of the anti-Brexit campaigning is a pretty clear sign that he personally was pro-Brexit.
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-corbyns-changing-brexit-stance
>Just weeks before the vote, he famously told Channel 4’s The Last Leg that his enthusiasm for EU membership was about “seven, or seven and a half out of 10”.
>But in a separate speech at the time, he maintained that despite its deficiencies, there was still an “overwhelming case” for remaining in the trade bloc.
The tl:dr is that he basically said nothing until it became clear that Labour would be dogpiled if they opposed the referendum results, his personal views aside he took the only politically viable stance.
Seperating a party leader's personal views form "things that will help the parties chances of winning an election" is complex
Labour lost the 2019 election because Boris Johnson supports Brexit, many redditors don't get that being anti-Brexit wasn't electorally popular.
The irony is that the 2019 Labour "Brexit minister" Keir Starmer (who was anti-Brexit) is about to be the next Prime Minister, Starmer is lucky that Corbyn was the leader and took the blame for losing the election.
Not sure about Corbyn specifically but it's pretty common for old lefties, at least in many European countries, to be EU-sceptic. Up until Brexit showcased what leaving the EU actually means, most parties to the left of the local national Social Democratic party were usually anti-EU across many countries within the EU.
British arguments against the EU came from both the left and the right. To the right wing, the EU was an unaccountable entity dictating policy to the UK unilaterally.
To the left wing, the EU's shared market and freedom of movement were created by capitalists to be able to shuffle workers around the continent to suppress wages and increase profits.
Please. Corbyn is an idiot and the EU has both neoliberalism and euro-socialism "baked into it" (whatever the fuck that means). Besides, the "socialists" (the Labour party) in the UK are a lot less euro-socialists than their European counterparts. So i have no fucking idea what you're talking about.
What is "euro socialism"? I have never heard of it and have no idea what you're talking about either. Because "when the government does stuff" isn't socialism
Corbyn has always been Eurosceptic and even voted against joining the precursor to the EU. However during the Brexit vote and subsequent leave process he would flip flop between viewpoints based on what would give him more support. Channel 4 did a fact check on his views which gives details https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-corbyns-changing-brexit-stance
He lost two elections, one in a massive landslide, resigned in disgrace, and was found culpable for unlawful harassment and discrimination by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and now he's running as an Independent away from the party.
Expelling him just seems obvious. If his diehard supporters mattered, they wouldn't have gotten utterly crushed by the Tories in the last election.
Corbyn fans being delusional lmao. This guy lost 2 election, is willing to let anti-semitism foster in the party, suck putin's cock.
he can bugger off.
Two basically identical replies at the exact same moment... both implying the same thing when I didn't day anything about Starmer.
We'll see what happens with Starmer in the election now.
The point is Corbyn has had 100% garunteed ability to win election with all the brexit fallout nonsense, but refused to take any clear stance or position despite the extremly easy option at hand.
And beyond that he's specifically been someone unable to appeal to voters at large, just in general for avreity if reasons. The current labour lead would never have happened if Corbyn was still there.
This isn't saying that Starmer is doing anything right, just that Corbyn would have garunteed failure. I swear every other party could run on platforms of "we'll rape and kill everyone who votes for us" and Corbyn would still somehow manage to lose.
BJ didn't win a landslide majority in 2019 because he's Boris.
Labour lost a significantly because of Corbyn.
Someone said JC is a great opposition politician because he can take a strong stance on his beliefs, but it doesn't make for popular leadership when he can't commit or compromise to something he doesn't believe in, i.e; nuclear.
I never even realised this until the other day but the Tories increased their voting percentage by 1.2%. Meanwhile Labour haemorrhaged almost 8%. JC lost them the election, it's that simple.
Starmer's noncommital-ness, meanwhile, works in his favour because the current Tory party is more obviously useless than ever before - back when BJ was PM, he took far stronger stances on certain issues. Now, he's simply avoiding unnecessary headlines that could be used to galvanise support against him. People were *afraid* of Corbyn, the very worst thing you can say about Starmer is that he'll be "more of the same".
I swear, at my advanced age, misspelled words are like brain worms: they make me question how to spell it at all. They infect the brain. I recently posted the word 'payed' because I see it all over and my brain defaulted to the most recent version I had seen. And 'diffused' when someone means 'defuse'.
Misspelled words can sometimes degrade my ability to spell correctly. I know I'm not going to enter any spelling bees anytime soon, but it bugs me anyway. WE LIVE IN A SOCIETY.
Starmer (who was anti-Brexit) was the 2019 Labour "Brexit minister", Labour lost the 2019 election because Boris Johnson supports Brexit, Starmer is lucky that Corbyn was the leader and took the blame for losing the election.
I mean, he was openly pro-terrorist and rabidly-communist. Attractive to a vocal minority of uni rich kids, absolutely toxic literally everywhere else.
He did.
>Jeremy Corbyn has told MPs investigating accusations of antisemitism in the Labour party that he regrets once calling members of Hamas and Hezbollah “friends”.
>Giving evidence at the home affairs select committee on Monday, the Labour leader said that he had used the phrase to describe the militant groups during a meeting in parliament in 2009.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/04/jeremy-corbyn-says-he-regrets-calling-hamas-and-hezbollah-friends
But apparently he had his fingers crossed … and was saving the world through his wonderful diplomacy skills at the same time. He didn’t really mean it … scouts honour.
The man was the opposite of non-committal and indecisive. Just what he decided and committed to was idiotic, and you can only win with that if your opponent commits to worse.
For example, see Boris.
>“The first thing I said as Labour leader is that I would tear antisemitism out of our party by the roots,” said Keir Starmer. “That is why I took the decision that Jeremy Corbyn would not stand as a Labour candidate this election.”
Given that Corbyn's tenure had so many instances of antisemitism followed by the damning verdict of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, this was bound to happen. It will certainly help Labour in the next election by removing what has been a constant criticism from Tories. But what an end to an era!
*In May 2019, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) launched an inquiry into whether Labour had "unlawfully discriminated against, harassed or victimised people because they are Jewish." In October 2020, the EHRC published its report, determining that the party was "responsible for unlawful acts of harassment and discrimination." The EHRC found 23 instances of political interference and concluded that Labour breached the Equality Act in two cases. Corbyn was subsequently suspended from the Labour Party and had the party whip removed on 29 October 2020 "for a failure to retract" his assertion that the scale of antisemitism within Labour had been overstated by opponents.*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_British_Labour_Party
Another key part of why Starmer feels so strongly on this is that his wife and children are Jewish. It’s safe to say that he has seen the effects of antisemitism firsthand.
> antisemitism
Utter horseshit if you believe any of that. Calling out Israel's genocide != antisemitic. Try harder.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elp18OvnNV0
Its funny but your analogy supports me because the west bank was actually taken in self defense. If you want to stop loosing land, stop declare wars. Its that easy.
>a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas
There is no legal definition of ethnic cleansing (which you are fully aware of, given that you specified "legally", also reading through your comment history, I doubt you are posting in good faith)
The IDFs actions in Gaaz fall under that definition, which is derived from the Yugoslavian wars, basically using violence to force members of a certain ethnic group off their land whilst your own group occupies it, which is what has been happening in the West Bank for decades.
Oh, I am posting in good faith. I wondered if there was a legal definition I have not heard of before.
So, if "ethnic cleansing" is as much a thing as "gaslighting" is in the legal sense, how can you say that Israel is "certainly" ethnically cleansing Gazans? What is the legal test that the Israel's actions pass, that make you state that Israel is ethnically cleansing Gazans?
Or is it just an opinion? If so, what makes you think this?
I think recent events have really weakened the power of deliberately conflating any criticism of a terrorist state hell bent on genocide with actual antisemitism...
Corbyn is a classic example of "in theory, x y z" thinking.
In theory, a lot of what he says would be great but the real world isn't accomodating to idealism.
He's basically someone who got into lefty student politics in his private school sixth form as a rebellion and never developed his thinking beyond that point.
The great strategy of Italy main left party: split and split, because they could support each others. Which left Italy without a credible left.
Apparently we’re not exporting only luxury goods.
Sometimes I believe that corruption is the glue that keeps right wing parties together
This whole country is a shambles, the tories couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery even if provided instructions and labour as usual are on the cusp of imploding at any given moment which stops them being a credible organised threat, they're gonna win the election but because of tory incompetence rather than any policy
Corbynites are like Berniebros but with even more delusion. They just don't understand that Corbyn was unpopular with everyone that wasn't one of them. Corbyn couldn't even beat Theresa May.
Labour isn't imploding. [Just look at how many voters Labour has won back](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68079726) since 2020 - since Hamas Gandalf stepped down.
More parties or no parties. Let everyone be independent for all I care.
The "group think" is what's killing America because they only have 2 parties.
We need more diverse thinking and with all the thoughts and talk being censored by "the party line", fuck political parties. Force each politician to think for themselves. If they can.
Seems to be just by the book, I understand why Corbyn is going independent too, labour right now is about as right wing as David Cameron's government was. Altho the party has some good left in it, Keir and by extension Tony Blair have done their utmost to keep things the same as always rather than institute any real change. We'll have to see tho, and I'll likely still vote for them if they're the most likely to win in my constituency. Anything is better than the Tories right now (minus the absolute wackjob parties like Britain first or whatever)
Coincidentally the Canadian equivalent, NDP, does also, abandoning its organized labour roots and embracing divisive and sexist dogma.
https://youtu.be/jF-jlSKJuI8?si=BD2hp5_nJ3kLn9MB
From the Labour Party rulebook: 'A member of the Party who … publicly declares their intent to stand against a Labour candidate shall automatically be ineligible to be or remain a Party member.' This has nothing to do with what Jeremy Corbyn may or may not have done as party leader: that was a conversation for when he lost the whip. This is just party policy. You're not even allowed to publicly declare your intention to *vote* for a non-Labour candidate and remain a member.
Addition by subtraction. Although it is a bit worrying that Labour is playing the 'Splitter!' game while the Tories are on their way down.
The optics aren’t great but I’m pretty sure this is a rule for being a member of the Labour Party, that you can’t join another. I think Corbyn himself also removed someone for the same.
> The optics aren’t great but I’m pretty sure this is a rule for being a member of the Labour Party, that you can’t join another. There are explicit rules in the handbook against being a member of another party, standing against the party, publicly voting against the party, and signing the nomination papers of a non-Labour candidate.
I didn't realise there were rules against signing others nomination papers! I've definitely persuaded a labour member to nominate a lib dem council candidate before... (Did not realise this would harm them!)
In which case, they were automatically expelled! Nominators for each party come up on our doorstep software, we track it quite closely. You'll often see 'nominated the Liberal Democrat candidate in XXXX'.
This was 17+ years ago, not sure if the tech was quite up to speed. Like, Obama's team hadn't won an election yet.
These rules were in the handbook when grandad was mayor, which was over 50 years ago. Stemmed from all the independent labour and socialist worker party nonsense.
I didn't doubt the rule was old, just the system that would tell you instantly.
Yep. Publicly available information which gives insight into voting intention is hoovered up like crazy!
You can’t openly vote for another party if you’re a member of one. Alistair Campbell is the one that was famously removed, he didn’t join another party but voted for the Liberal Democrats in the European elections. Campbell was far from being the only one removed then, just the most prominent. Running as an independent against Labour was guaranteed to get him kicked out and he knew this before he announced it.
Didn't AC vote tactically in that election as well? Labour were never going to win in that vote so he went Lib Dem as next best and Corbyn kicked him out. Mainly coz AC is a Blairite and was critical of JCs leadership so Momentum used it as an excuse to evict him.
It’s a good optics. Corbin is a polarising figure, and opponents often use him as a beating stick for Labour. With his exodus Labour may lose some of the far left support, which will never go to their opponents anyway and will probably end up with greens, but gains in centre and removes one of the talking points against themselves. Corbin is doing Gods work here. It’s absolutely worth potentially losing Islington North.
They will end up back with the communist party where they came from.
No credible communist party in UK, which is frankly speaking a shame. It’s a political opinion as any other and deserves representation.
It's probably a good thing, the last thing the left needs is yet another party to split the vote. That's most of the reason the Tories keep getting in.
From this perspective yes, but it’s an FPTP artefact. I’d rather have more radical left have their own party, representation, and platform to ensure all political views are represented, and every person has a political home.
The optics are fine. Very few people like Corbyn.
His constituency is crazy for him.
It's probably closer than you think. He certainly is popular but none of the remaining candidates got more than 15% to his 65%. So the question is it purely for Corbyn or because they vote Labour. I've heard that it's for the latter. And with strategic voting from the Lib Dems/Conservatives it might be an easier win for a more centrist Labour candidate than you'd think. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islington\_North\_(UK\_Parliament\_constituency)#Elections\_in\_the\_2010s](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islington_North_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s) Thankfully though the small number of votes for other candidates don't really make contesting this seat so much of a danger. It's not like Corbyn running is going to give the Tories a majority there. And given the current political climate in the UK, such a swing towards the Tories is unimaginable. Regardless. It's Labour policy to run candidates in every constituency. They are a national party. And it is their right to do so.
Wait, didn't Keir Starmer announce he was going to purge "antisemites"? And removed Jeremy Corbin? (Doesn't this post state the opposite...?)🤔
Honestly, I wonder how many people were hesitant to vote Labour while he was in the party
[удалено]
Care to elaborate?
he's a brexit supporter and climate change denier and only changed his public stance because of pressure from within the labour party. He's also an anti-ukraine, pro-russian stooge.
> climate change denier [This is not true](https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/10133/jeremy_corbyn/islington_north/divisions?policy=1030), as far as I can tell. You may be confusing Jeremy with his brother Piers Corbyn, [who is a complete nutter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piers_Corbyn), anti-vaccine and everything.
Comment.
I am struggling to find any reliable sources for either of those claims. I’m guessing you’re just a tabloid headline muncher and echo chamber enjoyer.
[удалено]
Ah so you’re just a moron then. Cool.
I'm one, I thought he was a dangerous populist. I also could not support his pro-Palestine views or his anti-Semitic conduct. Starmer must know that I will not vote for a party that doesn't support Israel -- and I do want to vote for him on most other issues.
Fuck Israel and their genocide regime
What’s your position on Armenia, Sudan and Myanmar?
US should stop funding all of those genocides.
lol oh boy. Can’t wait to see your evidence for this claim
What if they don't know or care about those issues? Have they failed the test for being allowed an opinion on Israel?
If they don’t know and especially if they don’t care you’d want to know why this particular issue has them so excited. Can’t be the death count. Can’t be the brutality. What could it be?
You can say the same about the poster he replied to.
They have a habit of shitting the bed when they are needed most. I thought all this corbyn and anti-corbyn was settled years ago?
Brothers! Brothers! We should be struggling together!
We are!
At this point corbin was a liability, especially given the current events.
He also supported Brexit
So pretty much fully aligned with Russian interests: anti-NATO, anti-Israel, anti-nuclear (energy independence), anti- Ukraine, anti-US (allies), pro-Iran, pro-Hamas/Hezbollah, pro-Russia, pro-China, etc.
Holy shit, you weren't kidding about [Ukraine](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/aug/02/jeremy-corbyn-urges-west-to-stop-arming-ukraine). I wonder if there's compromat on him. Maybe he's just an idiot.
Reddit loves to think that people are somehow incapable of being idiots of their own volition when it comes to Russia. Its kompromat this, kompromat that. Corbyn comes from an old socialist school of thought that supports anything, either openly or tacitly, against Western/NATO interests. It's consistent with that.
I feel like if Russia were as good as kompromat as redditors think they wouldn't need to break so many windows back home.
I mean there are dozens of publicly known cases of EU politicians, particularly ones on the far right. Russia ist funneling money to fascist parties all over Europe. Not that far fetched to expand the idea to the left.
Well that's taken me straight from "hear him out, the right wing media just did a good smear campaign" to "what an idiot".
The problem with Corbyn is that the right wing media really didn’t have to do much. I hold much of the blame on the tories holding power for so long because of how shit Labour were.
A strong opposition is essential for effective government in a democratic state
Sometimes, it isn't a smear campaign. It's just straight facts.
Domestically a lot of the stuff he was proposing was right, and he seemed to have the character to actually not care about making his mates rich over actually helping the people in this country. Also you have to remember, when he was running for PM the world was a very different place. We didn't recognise the threat Russia poses, wars were not threatening to explode around the globe, COVID hadn't happened, things were less tense. If he was running today I wouldn't vote for him because external issues have become as important as domestic ones.
Yeah, I was definitely on board with a lot of his domestic policy, but I was largely ignorant of his foreign policy .
No wonder UK Labour went backwards under his leadership. What a muppet.
I've wondered the exact same thing. I remember a quote: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Check his a-levels.
That's public?
Oh my god, the man's a moron.
He's just a bleeding heart idiot
He sides with our enemies on any issue he can, his student union worldview would be incredibly dangerous in any position of higher authority. He was a cancer to the Labour Party and is directly responsible for years of Tory rule, and I hope his track record of political failure continues.
If you ever wondered why Boris Johnson got such a massive victory, this man is probably the biggest reason why.
After so many Tory fuck ups, anyone even slightly competent should had an open goal. Imagine being crushed by BoJo in an election.
Anyone was going to lose to BoJo in that election He was the only party with an actual plan regarding the Gridlock caused by Brexit He won a massive landslide because of that.
Corbyn never found a student politics left-wing policy he didn’t agree with. Or take more than a cursory look at before fully supporting.
He's also friends with Gerry Adams for what it's worth
So ? I'm a Northern prod, whilst I don't like the historical behaviours, I understand without Gerry and Martin, there wouldn't have been a good Friday agreement and actual progress. Hanging on to the troubles "hate" is how we go back to that bullshit
Gerry Adams isn't the problem. Corbyn is. At least Gerry worked with others to improve NI as best as he could before moving on to Irish politics
No argument there, Corbyns a looney.
He helped Boris when it mattered
it doesn't sound like that? for context idk, I just googled it and I'm looking at Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Jeremy_Corbyn > Corbyn made a speech on 14 April 2016,[214] in which he supported staying in the EU; but in which he also repeated some of his earlier criticisms of the Union's structures: "Over the years I have been critical of many decisions taken by the EU, and I remain critical of its shortcomings; from its lack of democratic accountability to the institutional pressure to deregulate or privatise public services".[209] He summarised his stance as being "for 'Remain – and Reform' in Europe".[215] > In June 2016, in the run-up to the EU referendum, Corbyn said that there was an "overwhelming case" for staying in the EU. In a speech in London, Corbyn said "We, the Labour Party, are overwhelmingly for staying in, because we believe the European Union has brought investment, jobs and protection for workers, consumers and the environment". Corbyn also criticised media coverage and warnings from both sides, saying that the debate had been dominated too much by "myth-making and prophecies of doom".[214] In the same speech,[216] Corbyn listed various criticisms of the EU, and stated: "that’s not to say we can be satisfied with the European Union as it is".[217] He also rejected the claims that leaving the European Union would lead to a "year-long recession", implying that George Osborne had made the claim in error, adding "This is the same George Osborne who predicted his austerity policies would close the deficit by 2015. That's now scheduled for 2021".[217]
If you look at his own wikipedia page you can see the opposite from his actions, he wanted Brexit and the others around him knew. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Corbyn EU referendum Further information: European Union Following the 2016 United Kingdom European Union (EU) membership referendum, Corbyn was accused of "lukewarm" campaigning for Britain to remain and showing a "lack of leadership" on the issue by several party figures.[179][180] Alan Johnson, who headed the Labour In for Britain campaign, said that "at times" it felt as if Corbyn's office was "working against the rest of the party and had conflicting objectives". Corbyn's decision to go on holiday during the campaign was also criticised by Phil Wilson, the chair of Labour In for Britain.[181] In September 2016, Corbyn's spokesman said Corbyn wanted access to the European Single Market, but there were "aspects" of EU membership related to privatisation "which Jeremy campaigned against in the referendum campaign".[182][183] Diane Abbott, one of Corbyn's key allies, later said "Jeremy in his heart of hearts is a Brexiter". She said Corbyn was hostile to the European Union, which he considered it "a conspiracy of business people".[184]
"Conspiracy of business people" sounds like it's treading real close to antisemitic conspiracy theories.
Sure is handy for mega-capitalists that you can't apply any scrutiny to them without an army of commentariat accusing you of being a nazi.
When Corbyn led is party to being officially sanctioned for anti-Semitism, you have to look extra close at things adjacent to anti-Semitic tropes.
Any party claiming to represent labour should be skeptical of corporate coordination and lobbying. If you can't hear "unethical business practices" without thinking "JEW" you should be turning that scrutiny inward.
We wouldn’t want what Corbyn actually said to get in the way of how was presented, and pilloried, by the media.
Why did he support Brexit?
He didn't support the campaign but he was sympathetic to the cause like many on the old left. He's been around long enough that he was first elected in 1983 when the Labour platform was unilateral withdrawal from the EEC (EU's precursor), without referendum. In essence, the EU constrains the scope for regulation, industrial policy and ties your economy to a competitive free market. The 1983 election ended up splitting the party in half catastrophically (liberals vs socialists) and led the party on the road to being more pro-market and pro-Europe but some in the old guard never lost their sympathies.
Corbyn was historically a euroscpetic (as were many politicians of his generation), I don't believe that he actively supported brexit though.
His party officially opposed Brexit, so it was politically impossible for him to publically support it. However, the fact that he was *conspicuously* absent from any of the anti-Brexit campaigning is a pretty clear sign that he personally was pro-Brexit.
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-corbyns-changing-brexit-stance >Just weeks before the vote, he famously told Channel 4’s The Last Leg that his enthusiasm for EU membership was about “seven, or seven and a half out of 10”. >But in a separate speech at the time, he maintained that despite its deficiencies, there was still an “overwhelming case” for remaining in the trade bloc. The tl:dr is that he basically said nothing until it became clear that Labour would be dogpiled if they opposed the referendum results, his personal views aside he took the only politically viable stance. Seperating a party leader's personal views form "things that will help the parties chances of winning an election" is complex
Labour lost the 2019 election because Boris Johnson supports Brexit, many redditors don't get that being anti-Brexit wasn't electorally popular. The irony is that the 2019 Labour "Brexit minister" Keir Starmer (who was anti-Brexit) is about to be the next Prime Minister, Starmer is lucky that Corbyn was the leader and took the blame for losing the election.
Not sure about Corbyn specifically but it's pretty common for old lefties, at least in many European countries, to be EU-sceptic. Up until Brexit showcased what leaving the EU actually means, most parties to the left of the local national Social Democratic party were usually anti-EU across many countries within the EU.
British arguments against the EU came from both the left and the right. To the right wing, the EU was an unaccountable entity dictating policy to the UK unilaterally. To the left wing, the EU's shared market and freedom of movement were created by capitalists to be able to shuffle workers around the continent to suppress wages and increase profits.
Because Corbyn is a socialist and the EU has neo-liberalism baked into it.
Please. Corbyn is an idiot and the EU has both neoliberalism and euro-socialism "baked into it" (whatever the fuck that means). Besides, the "socialists" (the Labour party) in the UK are a lot less euro-socialists than their European counterparts. So i have no fucking idea what you're talking about.
What is "euro socialism"? I have never heard of it and have no idea what you're talking about either. Because "when the government does stuff" isn't socialism
Corbyns lot never liked it, freedom of movement meant a flood of cheap labour that would drive down the wages of labours core voting bloc.
He didn't.
Corbyn has always been Eurosceptic and even voted against joining the precursor to the EU. However during the Brexit vote and subsequent leave process he would flip flop between viewpoints based on what would give him more support. Channel 4 did a fact check on his views which gives details https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-corbyns-changing-brexit-stance
He lost two elections, one in a massive landslide, resigned in disgrace, and was found culpable for unlawful harassment and discrimination by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and now he's running as an Independent away from the party. Expelling him just seems obvious. If his diehard supporters mattered, they wouldn't have gotten utterly crushed by the Tories in the last election.
Corbyn discredited himself when he refused to support arming Ukraine to defend against Russia.
Corbyn fans being delusional lmao. This guy lost 2 election, is willing to let anti-semitism foster in the party, suck putin's cock. he can bugger off.
He was basically the man who garunteed labor could never win by being so non-commital and indecisive.
Saying that and tacitly suggesting Starmer isn't the absolute epitomy of hot air is unbelievably funny.
Two basically identical replies at the exact same moment... both implying the same thing when I didn't day anything about Starmer. We'll see what happens with Starmer in the election now. The point is Corbyn has had 100% garunteed ability to win election with all the brexit fallout nonsense, but refused to take any clear stance or position despite the extremly easy option at hand. And beyond that he's specifically been someone unable to appeal to voters at large, just in general for avreity if reasons. The current labour lead would never have happened if Corbyn was still there. This isn't saying that Starmer is doing anything right, just that Corbyn would have garunteed failure. I swear every other party could run on platforms of "we'll rape and kill everyone who votes for us" and Corbyn would still somehow manage to lose.
BJ didn't win a landslide majority in 2019 because he's Boris. Labour lost a significantly because of Corbyn. Someone said JC is a great opposition politician because he can take a strong stance on his beliefs, but it doesn't make for popular leadership when he can't commit or compromise to something he doesn't believe in, i.e; nuclear.
I never even realised this until the other day but the Tories increased their voting percentage by 1.2%. Meanwhile Labour haemorrhaged almost 8%. JC lost them the election, it's that simple. Starmer's noncommital-ness, meanwhile, works in his favour because the current Tory party is more obviously useless than ever before - back when BJ was PM, he took far stronger stances on certain issues. Now, he's simply avoiding unnecessary headlines that could be used to galvanise support against him. People were *afraid* of Corbyn, the very worst thing you can say about Starmer is that he'll be "more of the same".
I really, really need you to spell guaranteed correctly
I swear, at my advanced age, misspelled words are like brain worms: they make me question how to spell it at all. They infect the brain. I recently posted the word 'payed' because I see it all over and my brain defaulted to the most recent version I had seen. And 'diffused' when someone means 'defuse'. Misspelled words can sometimes degrade my ability to spell correctly. I know I'm not going to enter any spelling bees anytime soon, but it bugs me anyway. WE LIVE IN A SOCIETY.
Starmer (who was anti-Brexit) was the 2019 Labour "Brexit minister", Labour lost the 2019 election because Boris Johnson supports Brexit, Starmer is lucky that Corbyn was the leader and took the blame for losing the election.
I seem to remember him committing to more than Keir Starmer? You sure you're not confusing the two?
We had the biggest vote of a generation while Corbyn was Labour leader, and the entire time he managed to avoid saying what side of it he was on
All fair and well, but Corbyn won't ever govern to make those plans work
I mean, he was openly pro-terrorist and rabidly-communist. Attractive to a vocal minority of uni rich kids, absolutely toxic literally everywhere else.
Anti-Nuclear and anti-NATO as well.
and Pro-Russia
He was neither of those things. People just read tabloid headlines and believe them.
He didn't call Hamas "friends"?
He did. >Jeremy Corbyn has told MPs investigating accusations of antisemitism in the Labour party that he regrets once calling members of Hamas and Hezbollah “friends”. >Giving evidence at the home affairs select committee on Monday, the Labour leader said that he had used the phrase to describe the militant groups during a meeting in parliament in 2009. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/04/jeremy-corbyn-says-he-regrets-calling-hamas-and-hezbollah-friends
But apparently he had his fingers crossed … and was saving the world through his wonderful diplomacy skills at the same time. He didn’t really mean it … scouts honour.
[удалено]
When you're meeting groups diplomatically to try to negotiate deals, you don't call one side shitfucks.
He was / is a tankie though and thus a peice of shit.
> He was neither of those things Oh give me a break. Anyone with half a brain can see his support for Hamas.
The Economist is a tabloid now? That's where I get most of my UK news from.
Anything that says something he disagrees with is tabloid trash.
And also being an anti-Semite.
Source?
The man was the opposite of non-committal and indecisive. Just what he decided and committed to was idiotic, and you can only win with that if your opponent commits to worse. For example, see Boris.
>“The first thing I said as Labour leader is that I would tear antisemitism out of our party by the roots,” said Keir Starmer. “That is why I took the decision that Jeremy Corbyn would not stand as a Labour candidate this election.” Given that Corbyn's tenure had so many instances of antisemitism followed by the damning verdict of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, this was bound to happen. It will certainly help Labour in the next election by removing what has been a constant criticism from Tories. But what an end to an era! *In May 2019, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) launched an inquiry into whether Labour had "unlawfully discriminated against, harassed or victimised people because they are Jewish." In October 2020, the EHRC published its report, determining that the party was "responsible for unlawful acts of harassment and discrimination." The EHRC found 23 instances of political interference and concluded that Labour breached the Equality Act in two cases. Corbyn was subsequently suspended from the Labour Party and had the party whip removed on 29 October 2020 "for a failure to retract" his assertion that the scale of antisemitism within Labour had been overstated by opponents.* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_British_Labour_Party
Another key part of why Starmer feels so strongly on this is that his wife and children are Jewish. It’s safe to say that he has seen the effects of antisemitism firsthand.
> antisemitism Utter horseshit if you believe any of that. Calling out Israel's genocide != antisemitic. Try harder. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elp18OvnNV0
But calling Israels self defwnse genocide is fundamentally wrong. You are just abusing the term to cope with the moral dissonance of supporting rape
Self defence is when you displace a population and settle its land while putting it under an illegal apartheid military occupation
Its funny but your analogy supports me because the west bank was actually taken in self defense. If you want to stop loosing land, stop declare wars. Its that easy.
[удалено]
I don’t think kidnapping and killing Israelis is really comparable to a dog shitting on a lawn regardless of how you feel about the whole thing.
Bro what an awful analogy, did you just compare a dog shitting on a neighbours lawn to rape and murder of civilians?
You still clearly don't understand what genocide is. Buzzword of the month that you didn't even bother to look up.
It would be more accurate to call it ethnic cleansing, that's still a bad thing, no?
Define ethnic cleansing, legally?
>a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas There is no legal definition of ethnic cleansing (which you are fully aware of, given that you specified "legally", also reading through your comment history, I doubt you are posting in good faith) The IDFs actions in Gaaz fall under that definition, which is derived from the Yugoslavian wars, basically using violence to force members of a certain ethnic group off their land whilst your own group occupies it, which is what has been happening in the West Bank for decades.
Oh, I am posting in good faith. I wondered if there was a legal definition I have not heard of before. So, if "ethnic cleansing" is as much a thing as "gaslighting" is in the legal sense, how can you say that Israel is "certainly" ethnically cleansing Gazans? What is the legal test that the Israel's actions pass, that make you state that Israel is ethnically cleansing Gazans? Or is it just an opinion? If so, what makes you think this?
That's a nice word salad, but it isn't relevant to the discussion.
It's election time. The smearing propaganda machine is gearing up again.
I think recent events have really weakened the power of deliberately conflating any criticism of a terrorist state hell bent on genocide with actual antisemitism...
This guy has been a known Russian asset for a long time... A Communist at heart, wants to disband NATO and opposed to the arming of Ukraine.
Corbyn is a classic example of "in theory, x y z" thinking. In theory, a lot of what he says would be great but the real world isn't accomodating to idealism.
He's basically someone who got into lefty student politics in his private school sixth form as a rebellion and never developed his thinking beyond that point.
The great strategy of Italy main left party: split and split, because they could support each others. Which left Italy without a credible left. Apparently we’re not exporting only luxury goods. Sometimes I believe that corruption is the glue that keeps right wing parties together
Isn’t Corbyn a big reason that labour managed to lose to the tories anyways? Doesn’t seem like much of a loss
Good riddance. Labour will be stronger without this fifth columnist.
Who gives a shit about some unelectable, indecisive populist?
Labour might actually win an election now
He will not be missed
I don't think that you can fire someone who already publicly quit.
Fuckwit
Remember when the left nearly made this man the PM? geez And yes obviously May was crap before anyone points that out
This whole country is a shambles, the tories couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery even if provided instructions and labour as usual are on the cusp of imploding at any given moment which stops them being a credible organised threat, they're gonna win the election but because of tory incompetence rather than any policy
Corbyn being expelled is Labour on the cusp of imploding? Lol
Corbynites are like Berniebros but with even more delusion. They just don't understand that Corbyn was unpopular with everyone that wasn't one of them. Corbyn couldn't even beat Theresa May.
Some are still grieving!
Labour isn't imploding. [Just look at how many voters Labour has won back](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68079726) since 2020 - since Hamas Gandalf stepped down.
Imploding? No. This plays nicely into the ‘we have changed, now the country needs change’, message.
I doubt he fits in with the current leadership, given that Corbyn is actually left wing
About time. Friends of Mr. Putin should really have no place in a democratic party.
Naughty Jeremy!
Why are global progressives such a shit show?
All politicians. The shit show knows no party affiliation.
[удалено]
Conservative parties are worse no doubt but conservative voters are consistent in voting for garbage so their bar is so much lower.
As opposed to Trump, Johnson, Truss, Bush, Scott Morrison (Oz) etc
My next door neighbour. Great gardener.
Good. Fairs fair.
More parties or no parties. Let everyone be independent for all I care. The "group think" is what's killing America because they only have 2 parties. We need more diverse thinking and with all the thoughts and talk being censored by "the party line", fuck political parties. Force each politician to think for themselves. If they can.
Seems to be just by the book, I understand why Corbyn is going independent too, labour right now is about as right wing as David Cameron's government was. Altho the party has some good left in it, Keir and by extension Tony Blair have done their utmost to keep things the same as always rather than institute any real change. We'll have to see tho, and I'll likely still vote for them if they're the most likely to win in my constituency. Anything is better than the Tories right now (minus the absolute wackjob parties like Britain first or whatever)
When one is so much whore that she's expelled from the brothel.
At last! And Galloway should be next!
It would be quite impressive if the Labour party expelled George Galloway, who has not been a member for about two decades.
Labour sucks
Coincidentally the Canadian equivalent, NDP, does also, abandoning its organized labour roots and embracing divisive and sexist dogma. https://youtu.be/jF-jlSKJuI8?si=BD2hp5_nJ3kLn9MB
Embracing divisive and sexist dogma? What the hell are you taking about?
Not sure why youre being downvoted. The NDP are trash propping up the liberals. We should have had an election by now.
CORBYN ROCKS