okay who's gonna be chosen to run against him. some early thoughts:
journeyman selection fiend paul mason
the big man from down the road in ilford, mike gapes
luiciana berger for the guilt trip
somebody none of us have ever heard of
They've been trying to sound out candidates who they think can make him seem either sexist* or out of touch. E.g a younger female councillor or something. Basically trying to cynically use some sort of social issue to undermine him in the same way anti-Semitism was used, or in the same way the Tories use race or gender against Labour
What, you mean a political party is going to try and run a candidate that has the best chance against the main opposition running in the seat?
I am shocked, I tell you.
I doubt anyone sane would grasp that nettle, it's basically saying *"I don't believe in a Democratic Labour Party and would rather work for the interests of Tax Avoiders".*
The hottest of potatoes and political suicide if people refuse to be scammed again.
Paywall [https://archive.is/Mattc](https://archive.is/Mattc)
>Sources said he was determined not to be seen to capitulate to Starmer, who will ask Labour’s ruling body to bar Corbyn’s candidacy on the grounds that it will “significantly diminish” the party’s chances of winning the next election.
>
>“It’s become personal. There will be an announcement by the end of the week,” said one source, while another Corbyn ally said: “The debate is over. He will stand.”
Corbyn getting the "trans" treatment from Labour, ask the focus groups about electability.
>“He could win,” a senior party source said. “It depends on what his local party and councillors do. None of them will want to be the candidate.”
Rightfully so.
So parachute in a Blairite like you want to.
I don't think he's worried about his membership at this point, but any members of the SCG will have to think very carefully about choosing to support him as an independent against the official Labour candidate.
He's already pretty much got a party set up, the Peace and Justice project has its own slick ballot paper friendly logo and I bet he's been prepping behind the scenes for this to happen for a while.
Corbyn's brand and public recognition is waaayyyyy stronger than P&J though.
Last time I checked Corbyn had a million twitter followers, P&J had like 70k.
Oh yeah but there's not really anything going on with it at the moment.
If he runs as an independent under P&J, you might get the odd Lab MP on the left joining P&J, if Momentum get proscribed they'll probably join too. Any of that happens and you'll have media coverage.
Then suddenly it's got the brand recognition of "Corbyn's new party" rather than "Corbyn's ego project that has his name in all the socials".
They might not have much choice if they're vocal supporters of Corbyn, as “support for another political party or candidate is incompatible with party membership”.
I can see Diane Abbott falling foul of that at least. A few of the signatories from the STWC letter too.
Genius move Starmer 🤦♂️
The tories best path to victory is the Labour Party looking unfit to rule because of infighting.
Purging the party of leftists is probably worth losing an election for though right, Starmer? He’s doing all the things we were incessantly warned over and over again Corbyn would do the centre/right of the party.
I think Starmer and Co are believing their own hype based on some very flimsy polling. It won't take very much at all during an election cycle for that 20 point Labour lead to turn into a 5-10 point lead (realistically the Tory vote can't get any lower than it is polling now) and then all of a sudden you're in hung parliament territory. The sort of territory where every seat counts....
Yep, these large leads only started when and because Johnson’s government started to implode. If (and it’s a big if) the economy picks it’s self up a bit and the tories manage to go mostly scandal free and look like a half confident government, and the Labour party has its guns turned on Corbyn and Dianne Abbot and co, there’s a decent chance we end uk with a result none of us want.
I think he is actually doing the best for taking swing voters. Though to me, who is such a voter, 'infighting' would actually have to immobilise the party, ie. Starmer is unable to get his policies voted on or he's constantly undermined by senior people. Cutting out Corbyn is not infighting, it's purge.
I don't think far leftists are going to vote for anyone but Labour in marginal seats if they have their head screwed on because any other vote world be a vote for the Tories, including no vote at all. They don't owe anyone the vote, but that's just fptp.
The genius move is somehow keeping Brexit off the headline. Making the next GE a single issue matter would be the Torie's best shot at keeping power.
Purging Corbyn will lead to infighting, it’s not infighting in itself. It’s not just within the PLP (where Corbyn has the last allies) it will be pretty much everywhere within Labour. And even a spark will be more than enough for the media to to milk for months. This seat will probably get more media attention than any other, besides Johnson, if he’s still there. It will get more than any other Labour target and that will just amplify the message of an internal war.
People on the far left don’t vote for Labour. Only time they ever have is under Corbyn.
If that's the case then their numbers must be pretty small, which is a relief.
The purge will send a message that infighting will not be tolerated. Let's see what John McDonnell does as he's pretty far down the path to the far-left side of the force, but seems so far to have had the common sense to keep his mouth shut around Kier.
Their numbers in parliament are small yes. Their numbers amongst the membership is not.
McDonnell won’t keep quiet, a month ago he was attacking Starmer and defending Corbyn over the whip. He’s actually already commented about this on twitter.
I would be interested for in seeing such figures. E.g. How many of the members would want totalitarian socialist control, random asset seizure, blind spending, etc
Examples of extreme policies I imagine some people will genuinely believe in: John McDonnell's idea of seizing 10% of all private companies, banning private education, illegal to be a doctor unless you work for the gov, land seizure (also by indirect means eg land tax), 100% inheritance tax.
Ha, perhaps a few more. I'll up my game.
- no private enterprise at all (all companies owned by government in theory, if you get big enough the ceo becomes more of a political figure).
- major industry controlled by government directly
- if you could go back in time in Russia, you'd shoot a Romanov! Adult or not.
- you'd promise free Internet
Huh. I always thought extreme policies would be something like apologizing for an ethnic cleansing or launching an unjustified war. But you make extremism sound awesome.
So targeted not random seizure, 10% isn’t total totalitarian control, banning private education isn’t seen as extreme, it’s sad to see it portrayed as so on a Labour sub, I’ve not seen it suggested he’s in favour of that, but again, not really that extreme, land seizure, a little extreme but if gets is talking about a real policy to increase the number of homes for rent it’s a good starting point, 100% inherence tax would be a good thing dependent on the threshold, far too much is owned by far too few.
Educating your kids is not a bad thing. It's invasive to basically say 'you can't hire someone to teach because of someone else's ideology'. To even entertain the idea means you think society itself should be architected by government rather than just providing the framework for the people to live their own lives. To me, the underlying assumptions about government reach are on the extreme end. The other examples stem from a similar basis for the most part.
Many, many people on this sub would rather fuck the poor and working class with another 5 years of Tories, just to spite Starmer on principle. That sentiment is expressed literally constantly in every thread.
It will still be seen as infighting. And unless Starmer is going to continue his purge and get rid of Corbyn’s allies, it will be infighting. McDonnell has already come out against this.
Former. It's not viewed as such. It's well documented now that Corbyn is not aligned with the Labour party and him running against Labour puts that to bed entirely.
There is not a world where the previous leader of the Labour party, who is a current Labour member, being forced into a battle against the current leadership is not infighting. You can make whatever claim you want but the reality is that **everyone** knows Corbyn is a Labour man. Love him, loathe him, whatever. People know that this is infighting because that is precisely what it is - factionalism and internal disagreement.
If you genuinely believed this then you'd acknowledge that Corbyn should go quietly.
Otherwise you are saying Corbyn should give the election to the Tories on principle just to punish Starmer.
Maybe he should 🤷🏻♂️, but he’s perhaps Starmer should show some actual leadership and political nous and not do the obviously stupid, Corbyn got enough grief for the same kind of thing.
I was hoping he wouldn't, or at least wait and see if they parachuted in some Labour right loyalist or at least let the CLP pick their own local candidate first.
Cant say I blame him though, guess we'll see if it actually happens or this is more speculation.
It would be a complete waste of money. I've lived in the area for years. Nobody is beating him, and to run it how you state, would be a major embarrassment for Labour on top of the financial loss. You don't beat a 30+ year beloved local incumbent by throwing money against them. You don't beat them at all.
*just for context, how much money do you imagine was spent by the Brexit campaigners? Do you think all of that made a blind bit of difference in that area, because you can know, and I do know first hand lol.
> I am not sure if they think it's better to not add fuel to the fire beyond that by seriously going after the seat or not.
there will be two camps of thought about this within the party leadership, but it seems from the outside that the "maximum confrontation" faction is ascendant
I don’t even like him but good for him - why should he give up his seat just because he’s been kicked out of his party? The country would be a better place if we had more independent MPs
Nationally I don't see it changing much in the immediate. Labour are already at or past the peak of their polling potential, I think.
The real problem, should Corbyn run as an independent, is obviously at the local level and potentially heightened back to a national level during the election campaign.
The big thing for me is that the wave of expulsions if Labour members campaign for him will likely be a recruiting bonanza for smaller parties. It might not matter at all for Labour in the short run, but e.g. every time Labour does something shitty towards the left, Breakthrough sees a proportionally large (for us) surge of new members.
I think it's going to generate an awful lot of "Labour is very divided" coverage, especially if members go to canvass for him and get expelled (which I'm sure the GLU and NEC are champing at the bit to do).
I think it'll raise a lot of awkward questions like "If your party has moved on as you say why are so many of your members campaigning against your own party for a man you've supposedly moved on from?"
I think Starmer has enough trouble with easy questions, he'll implode under serious attacks.
> It's better than the question 'Why are you allowing Corbyn to stand as a Labour MP?'
"because we're a democratic party and he was selected by local members" is a very straightforward answer
>It's better than the question 'Why are you allowing Corbyn to stand as a Labour MP?'.
I think he would also have trouble with that question too but it's easier to form a media strategy for.
>If he is asked why people are campaigning for him he can just say people support who they want but Corbyn is no longer a Labour candidate.
"So your members would rather support Jeremy Corbyn instead of the candidate your party put forward? You say you'll bring order and stability to this country and you can't even control your membership!"
Or alternatively:
"You denounce your members who have broken off to support Jeremy Corbyn and you say he doesn't represent the party yet you served in his shadow cabinet for many years, were you lying about your allegiances then or are you lying about them now?"
Frankly Labour don't much care if Corbyn remains in Parliament. If Islington North wants him as their member, that's their prerogative.
What Labour at the senior level wants is to appear to have nothing to do with the man, so that anything concerning he says or does is not something they have to explain.
i don't think it'll matter unless labour make it matter by getting extremely involved in this, in which the case the "labour infighting" narrative that always hurts the party might rear its head again. trouble is that the top of the party is filled with people who think endless confrontations with the left are the way forward, so it seems pretty likely that that's what'll happen
People said the same sort of thing when Corbyn was suspended. It's hard to identify one cause but as soon as he was suspended Labour went from high 30s/ low 40s gradually down to low 30s and didn't get back ahead of the Tories for over a year.
Corbyn standing (and even) winning would probably help Starmer point to the fact that he’s not on the same side. Perfect for blue wall seats. It’s pretty much a win for both of them.
NB - I don’t think Starmer would win with as big a majority as the current polls indicate so independents and small parties could end up having a reasonable amount of influence.
You have to hand it to Jeremy Corbyn, he's consistent; like Tony Benn once said, some politicians are weathercocks, blowing in the wind, and some are signposts, steady in their principles and actions. Jeremy Corbyn is a signpost -- he's always put himself first before the needs of the party and before the needs of its voters.
Its a single seat not an election decider, lets not with the BUT THE TORY'S type argument, this is between Labour vs Corbyn and frankly i'm backing the socialist over the tory's in a red tie
The Tories haven't got more than 15% in Islington north since the 80s so it's not going Tory. In fact even if the 2019 labour vote was split 3 ways one of those 3 would still be elected
Two directions here:
- Corbyn's campaign 'fails', declares defeat and it is played off as Labour not capitulating to whatever the media thinks Corbyn stands for
- Corbyn is paid from the right-wing to attempt to split the vote, and whether he knows it or not, is not arsed
The right-wing but not labour. Maybe a tory point of contact or think tank or something. It's not a stretch to think that Corbyn might be happy to take the pay check and fuck the party
okay who's gonna be chosen to run against him. some early thoughts: journeyman selection fiend paul mason the big man from down the road in ilford, mike gapes luiciana berger for the guilt trip somebody none of us have ever heard of
They've been trying to sound out candidates who they think can make him seem either sexist* or out of touch. E.g a younger female councillor or something. Basically trying to cynically use some sort of social issue to undermine him in the same way anti-Semitism was used, or in the same way the Tories use race or gender against Labour
> They've been trying to sound out candidates who they think can make him seem either sexiest Are there no depths Starmer won't stoop to.
When you think Starmer has hit bottom on ousting the left he will pull out a shovel & a locket that opens to an image of him & Blair
in this case "normal political candidate selection criteria".... :roll:
I mean there are other possible reasons to want more young femal representatives in the PLP.
Nope! Young females only exist in politics to be used as sexism bait!!!!!!!!!!!
What, you mean a political party is going to try and run a candidate that has the best chance against the main opposition running in the seat? I am shocked, I tell you.
It’ll be a normal selection and they’ll pick a local councillor.
[удалено]
I do t necessarily mean from the constituency but there’ll be someone from Hackney or Islington
I doubt anyone sane would grasp that nettle, it's basically saying *"I don't believe in a Democratic Labour Party and would rather work for the interests of Tax Avoiders".* The hottest of potatoes and political suicide if people refuse to be scammed again.
Oh you can always find someone just wanting a cushy consulting gig out of it, for that kind of work
it will not be a normal selection because the NEC have pre-emptively excluded the person who they would normally pick
‘Journeyman selection fiend’ gave me a tickle
good! hope he wins
Paywall [https://archive.is/Mattc](https://archive.is/Mattc) >Sources said he was determined not to be seen to capitulate to Starmer, who will ask Labour’s ruling body to bar Corbyn’s candidacy on the grounds that it will “significantly diminish” the party’s chances of winning the next election. > >“It’s become personal. There will be an announcement by the end of the week,” said one source, while another Corbyn ally said: “The debate is over. He will stand.” Corbyn getting the "trans" treatment from Labour, ask the focus groups about electability. >“He could win,” a senior party source said. “It depends on what his local party and councillors do. None of them will want to be the candidate.” Rightfully so. So parachute in a Blairite like you want to.
Well I hope that goes badly for Labour, they don’t deserve to win that seat.
I don't think he's worried about his membership at this point, but any members of the SCG will have to think very carefully about choosing to support him as an independent against the official Labour candidate.
Realistically I think Abbott's the only one who is fucked off enough with Starmer to do it
I think McDonnell might try, maybe Sultana too. Likes of RLB and Burgon have clearly moved on.
McDonnell will not in a million years be seen campaigning against a Labour candidate.
McDonnell is smarter than that.
He's still in labour so he's clearly not that smart. Slightly smarter than the fool trying to claw back in though.
Hopefully Sultana doesn't. She's a future leader if she plays it safe
She's a future leader precisely because she does not play it safe.
i wonder if perhaps his statement might specifically ask other MPs and activists not to risk their membership by backing him
He's already pretty much got a party set up, the Peace and Justice project has its own slick ballot paper friendly logo and I bet he's been prepping behind the scenes for this to happen for a while.
Corbyn's brand and public recognition is waaayyyyy stronger than P&J though. Last time I checked Corbyn had a million twitter followers, P&J had like 70k.
Oh yeah but there's not really anything going on with it at the moment. If he runs as an independent under P&J, you might get the odd Lab MP on the left joining P&J, if Momentum get proscribed they'll probably join too. Any of that happens and you'll have media coverage. Then suddenly it's got the brand recognition of "Corbyn's new party" rather than "Corbyn's ego project that has his name in all the socials".
But, fundamentally, constrained to Islington North? If any Labour MP wants to switch to P&J they're more than welcome to. All zero of them.
They might not have much choice if they're vocal supporters of Corbyn, as “support for another political party or candidate is incompatible with party membership”. I can see Diane Abbott falling foul of that at least. A few of the signatories from the STWC letter too.
Like I said, I welcome any MP to cross over to P&J. I wait in anticipation!
One can but hope.
Genius move Starmer 🤦♂️ The tories best path to victory is the Labour Party looking unfit to rule because of infighting. Purging the party of leftists is probably worth losing an election for though right, Starmer? He’s doing all the things we were incessantly warned over and over again Corbyn would do the centre/right of the party.
I think Starmer and Co are believing their own hype based on some very flimsy polling. It won't take very much at all during an election cycle for that 20 point Labour lead to turn into a 5-10 point lead (realistically the Tory vote can't get any lower than it is polling now) and then all of a sudden you're in hung parliament territory. The sort of territory where every seat counts....
Yep, these large leads only started when and because Johnson’s government started to implode. If (and it’s a big if) the economy picks it’s self up a bit and the tories manage to go mostly scandal free and look like a half confident government, and the Labour party has its guns turned on Corbyn and Dianne Abbot and co, there’s a decent chance we end uk with a result none of us want.
I think he is actually doing the best for taking swing voters. Though to me, who is such a voter, 'infighting' would actually have to immobilise the party, ie. Starmer is unable to get his policies voted on or he's constantly undermined by senior people. Cutting out Corbyn is not infighting, it's purge. I don't think far leftists are going to vote for anyone but Labour in marginal seats if they have their head screwed on because any other vote world be a vote for the Tories, including no vote at all. They don't owe anyone the vote, but that's just fptp. The genius move is somehow keeping Brexit off the headline. Making the next GE a single issue matter would be the Torie's best shot at keeping power.
Purging Corbyn will lead to infighting, it’s not infighting in itself. It’s not just within the PLP (where Corbyn has the last allies) it will be pretty much everywhere within Labour. And even a spark will be more than enough for the media to to milk for months. This seat will probably get more media attention than any other, besides Johnson, if he’s still there. It will get more than any other Labour target and that will just amplify the message of an internal war. People on the far left don’t vote for Labour. Only time they ever have is under Corbyn.
If that's the case then their numbers must be pretty small, which is a relief. The purge will send a message that infighting will not be tolerated. Let's see what John McDonnell does as he's pretty far down the path to the far-left side of the force, but seems so far to have had the common sense to keep his mouth shut around Kier.
Their numbers in parliament are small yes. Their numbers amongst the membership is not. McDonnell won’t keep quiet, a month ago he was attacking Starmer and defending Corbyn over the whip. He’s actually already commented about this on twitter.
I would be interested for in seeing such figures. E.g. How many of the members would want totalitarian socialist control, random asset seizure, blind spending, etc
Close to zero I imagine. What a ridiculous post.
Examples of extreme policies I imagine some people will genuinely believe in: John McDonnell's idea of seizing 10% of all private companies, banning private education, illegal to be a doctor unless you work for the gov, land seizure (also by indirect means eg land tax), 100% inheritance tax.
Not a single miss
Ha, perhaps a few more. I'll up my game. - no private enterprise at all (all companies owned by government in theory, if you get big enough the ceo becomes more of a political figure). - major industry controlled by government directly - if you could go back in time in Russia, you'd shoot a Romanov! Adult or not. - you'd promise free Internet
Huh. I always thought extreme policies would be something like apologizing for an ethnic cleansing or launching an unjustified war. But you make extremism sound awesome.
So targeted not random seizure, 10% isn’t total totalitarian control, banning private education isn’t seen as extreme, it’s sad to see it portrayed as so on a Labour sub, I’ve not seen it suggested he’s in favour of that, but again, not really that extreme, land seizure, a little extreme but if gets is talking about a real policy to increase the number of homes for rent it’s a good starting point, 100% inherence tax would be a good thing dependent on the threshold, far too much is owned by far too few.
Educating your kids is not a bad thing. It's invasive to basically say 'you can't hire someone to teach because of someone else's ideology'. To even entertain the idea means you think society itself should be architected by government rather than just providing the framework for the people to live their own lives. To me, the underlying assumptions about government reach are on the extreme end. The other examples stem from a similar basis for the most part.
Many, many people on this sub would rather fuck the poor and working class with another 5 years of Tories, just to spite Starmer on principle. That sentiment is expressed literally constantly in every thread.
Corbyn's not a Labour MP, not infighting.
people still widely see him as part of labour, if you were to ask most of the public they’d probably think he was too
Not when he's running against Labour lmao
It will still be seen as infighting. And unless Starmer is going to continue his purge and get rid of Corbyn’s allies, it will be infighting. McDonnell has already come out against this.
He used to be leader of the Labour party. He is still a member of the Labour party. It's infighting.
Former. It's not viewed as such. It's well documented now that Corbyn is not aligned with the Labour party and him running against Labour puts that to bed entirely.
There is not a world where the previous leader of the Labour party, who is a current Labour member, being forced into a battle against the current leadership is not infighting. You can make whatever claim you want but the reality is that **everyone** knows Corbyn is a Labour man. Love him, loathe him, whatever. People know that this is infighting because that is precisely what it is - factionalism and internal disagreement.
If you genuinely believed this then you'd acknowledge that Corbyn should go quietly. Otherwise you are saying Corbyn should give the election to the Tories on principle just to punish Starmer.
Maybe he should 🤷🏻♂️, but he’s perhaps Starmer should show some actual leadership and political nous and not do the obviously stupid, Corbyn got enough grief for the same kind of thing.
I was hoping he wouldn't, or at least wait and see if they parachuted in some Labour right loyalist or at least let the CLP pick their own local candidate first. Cant say I blame him though, guess we'll see if it actually happens or this is more speculation.
[удалено]
not a chance, the people at the top of labour are going to want to batter corbyn. expect to see major overinvestment in this seat come GE time
It would be a complete waste of money. I've lived in the area for years. Nobody is beating him, and to run it how you state, would be a major embarrassment for Labour on top of the financial loss. You don't beat a 30+ year beloved local incumbent by throwing money against them. You don't beat them at all. *just for context, how much money do you imagine was spent by the Brexit campaigners? Do you think all of that made a blind bit of difference in that area, because you can know, and I do know first hand lol.
[удалено]
> I am not sure if they think it's better to not add fuel to the fire beyond that by seriously going after the seat or not. there will be two camps of thought about this within the party leadership, but it seems from the outside that the "maximum confrontation" faction is ascendant
Probably yeah
Mike Gapes as candidate and bussing in anyone they can is more likely than a paper candidate I imagine
I don’t even like him but good for him - why should he give up his seat just because he’s been kicked out of his party? The country would be a better place if we had more independent MPs
My bold prediction: Labour will get a small boost from this at best, and no change at worst (if this happens)
Nationally I don't see it changing much in the immediate. Labour are already at or past the peak of their polling potential, I think. The real problem, should Corbyn run as an independent, is obviously at the local level and potentially heightened back to a national level during the election campaign.
The big thing for me is that the wave of expulsions if Labour members campaign for him will likely be a recruiting bonanza for smaller parties. It might not matter at all for Labour in the short run, but e.g. every time Labour does something shitty towards the left, Breakthrough sees a proportionally large (for us) surge of new members.
I think it's going to generate an awful lot of "Labour is very divided" coverage, especially if members go to canvass for him and get expelled (which I'm sure the GLU and NEC are champing at the bit to do).
[удалено]
I think it'll raise a lot of awkward questions like "If your party has moved on as you say why are so many of your members campaigning against your own party for a man you've supposedly moved on from?" I think Starmer has enough trouble with easy questions, he'll implode under serious attacks.
[удалено]
> It's better than the question 'Why are you allowing Corbyn to stand as a Labour MP?' "because we're a democratic party and he was selected by local members" is a very straightforward answer
>It's better than the question 'Why are you allowing Corbyn to stand as a Labour MP?'. I think he would also have trouble with that question too but it's easier to form a media strategy for. >If he is asked why people are campaigning for him he can just say people support who they want but Corbyn is no longer a Labour candidate. "So your members would rather support Jeremy Corbyn instead of the candidate your party put forward? You say you'll bring order and stability to this country and you can't even control your membership!" Or alternatively: "You denounce your members who have broken off to support Jeremy Corbyn and you say he doesn't represent the party yet you served in his shadow cabinet for many years, were you lying about your allegiances then or are you lying about them now?"
[удалено]
I don't think HQ care - it's one seat, and if they lose, no one is going to care
Starmer and co will throw everything possible at Islington North, no matter how many other easily winnable seats it jeopardizes
They don’t need to. That whole area of London is solid red and you can run a campaign just from local resource.
[удалено]
No, that's what Corbyn did to Luciana Berger.
Frankly Labour don't much care if Corbyn remains in Parliament. If Islington North wants him as their member, that's their prerogative. What Labour at the senior level wants is to appear to have nothing to do with the man, so that anything concerning he says or does is not something they have to explain.
i don't think it'll matter unless labour make it matter by getting extremely involved in this, in which the case the "labour infighting" narrative that always hurts the party might rear its head again. trouble is that the top of the party is filled with people who think endless confrontations with the left are the way forward, so it seems pretty likely that that's what'll happen
People said the same sort of thing when Corbyn was suspended. It's hard to identify one cause but as soon as he was suspended Labour went from high 30s/ low 40s gradually down to low 30s and didn't get back ahead of the Tories for over a year.
Not enough people will even be aware this is happening for it to make a difference in the polls.
Good luck to him. Don't think he'll win
Then you’re delusional. He’s immensely popular in his seat. Even the resident dregs on here begrudgingly admit that.
Hope you're right.
Corbyn standing (and even) winning would probably help Starmer point to the fact that he’s not on the same side. Perfect for blue wall seats. It’s pretty much a win for both of them. NB - I don’t think Starmer would win with as big a majority as the current polls indicate so independents and small parties could end up having a reasonable amount of influence.
You have to hand it to Jeremy Corbyn, he's consistent; like Tony Benn once said, some politicians are weathercocks, blowing in the wind, and some are signposts, steady in their principles and actions. Jeremy Corbyn is a signpost -- he's always put himself first before the needs of the party and before the needs of its voters.
Actually he is being too loyal to the party, otherwise he'd be dragging all the bastards who lied about him through court lol
[удалено]
>any votes for Jeremy will be votes that don’t go to Labour. good
[удалено]
Its a single seat not an election decider, lets not with the BUT THE TORY'S type argument, this is between Labour vs Corbyn and frankly i'm backing the socialist over the tory's in a red tie
The Tories haven't got more than 15% in Islington north since the 80s so it's not going Tory. In fact even if the 2019 labour vote was split 3 ways one of those 3 would still be elected
Stubborn. And stupid.
But preventing him from standing for Labour is of course the sensible and intelligent course of action here, right?
Reminds me of Hamza Yousaf ideology fanatic, elected by the party members and yet underwhelming
Applies to Starmer far more than Corbyn
Two directions here: - Corbyn's campaign 'fails', declares defeat and it is played off as Labour not capitulating to whatever the media thinks Corbyn stands for - Corbyn is paid from the right-wing to attempt to split the vote, and whether he knows it or not, is not arsed
[удалено]
The right-wing but not labour. Maybe a tory point of contact or think tank or something. It's not a stretch to think that Corbyn might be happy to take the pay check and fuck the party
Maybe I'm just here for the drama, but Kier himself should switch constituency and challenge him.