To be ashamed of the Labour Party leadership

[20nil]

Long term member, did not support Corbyn, but even I am surprised by quite how bad he's been.

Where is the opposition? I get that Brexit is difficult, but where is Labour on the collapse of the NHS, the explosion of homelessness, the decimation of local council funding and the ticking bomb that is school funding?

Why is it that we now look to the Lords, the Cof E and petitions to be the opposition?

Shocking state of affairs.

Slarti, sigh. No, insulting language in debate is not OK by me, and I have not said it is, or used it (AFAIR and if I have, I apologise).

I am prepared to respect anyone's views if they can put forward a reasoned argument supported by facts and without using insults, straw men or whataboutery. Can you point me to some?

I have no idea who to vote for at the mo. Usually Labour but not with Corbyn at the helm.

I am prepared to respect anyone's views if they can put forward a reasoned argument supported by facts and without using insults, straw men or whataboutery

The reason I was pointing to Labour's self-definition as democratic socialists is hopefully to clarify what it stands for:

1. A redistribution/equalisation of wealth from top to bottom via taxation.
2. High levels of social, health, housing and educational spending.
3. State ownership of key industries - transport, health, energy, etc..
4. Strong worker rights.
5. An end to discrimination based on race, sex, religion, etc..

When we talk about policy positions, look to these stated foundations of the Labour Party. These are the heart of the Party. Policy will be specific, but along these lines.

If these core positions bother someone, they may have to ask if the Labour Party is for them.

Cowgirlsareforever
The hat was mentioned a couple of times in this thread. I'm sure it was in a light-hearted way, as was my mention of it.
I think he could be a great leader and has communicated very well to the thousands of people who joined the Labour Party solely to support him

Augustbody
Why WOULDNT you need to talk positively about the leader of your own party? As in my previous comments about the Tories who do just that - when the leader is decided they toe the line. There's a reason the smarmy bastards get in - they stick to the script. The difference I would hope is that our script pertains to real people as opposed to the elite few. The extra funding is supposed to come from mansion tax, top 5% earners and crack down on evasion /avoidance I believe.

Make, yes I agree. Have I said I disagree with any of those principles?

I called them 'blow ins' because they have the audacity to turn up to meetings, accuse long standing and hard working members of being 'Tory lite', without doing the hard graft of canvassing etc... themselves. Most new members would have voted Labour in any case, or definitely would not have voted Tory. We don't need to attract them as much we need to attract centre and floating voters. Why can't you see that? Yes, JC is democratically elected, but that doesn't mean I have to like him. I don't like Brexit, despite the case that remain lost the referendum.

And JC's voting record is irrelevant in this context. It's not what most voters care about. It's how he leads that matters, it's how he can sell his vision to the electorate. He can't, it's not the fault of the press, the PLP etc... it's his fault. He may be good at many things, but he is no leader.

I want Labour to win Stoke. I've donated to the campaign as I think UKIP getting a parliamentary seat would be terrible. But much as I'll campaign for Labour and want Labour to win, I can't back him as leader. Apart from the IRA support and the anti-semitism, he is hopeless at his job.

Mrs Ruby would you speak positively about Tristam Hunt or Liz Kendall if they were leaders?

20nil
I would still vote Labour if they were leaders. I understand what you're saying because, no, I wouldn't feel they necessarily ticked all my personal boxes as a leader but unless they proposed policies so far away from the core labour manifesto as to make the party unrecognisable, then I can honestly say that I would still speak positively about them.
Labour in any guise is better than a conservative government.
And i really am not saying people can't disagree on who would be best - of course this will always be subject to debate. I'm just wondering when we draw the line and say JC is currently leader, has been elected as such twice in a short space of time and is not currently being challenged in the role, so we will now come together and look at ways to give him a shot at getting the Tories out?

MrsRuby, fair enough about Hunt and Kendall. I would usually agree.

But my - and I think others - objection to JC is not his bread and butter domestic politics (in the sense of tax, NHS, austerity etc), although I think they could do with a bit of updating, detail and clarity. There are many examples on this thread of why people feel they cannot support him because of more fundamental issues that often come down to integrity, competence and leadership. I would find it possible to support someone who I believed had those qualities - even if we disagreed on how the NHS should be organised, for example.

It's so funny how the liberal left think they are so tolerant, they are the complete opposite.

Fuckin' 'ell is that you Dave?

Sorry but looking in on this as an outsider with no horse in this race, this thread and others of it's ilk are hilarious in their hypocrisy and twisted logic. The man has buckets of integrity, has made the Labour Party the largest political party in Europe by a very significant margin, re-ignited or just ignited many people's interest and faith in politics. He's being criticised for sticking to principles he ran on and was elected on, even if it meant voting against his party. By the same people who now plan on voting against their party.

Learning nothing from history, you people are allowing yourself into being manipulated into blaming him for the rise of right wing populism. Despite this exact tactic being a recognisable step on the rise of fascism not just in the 30s but just last bloody year in the US. It's very surprising to see in the UK because the intelligence of the British public has won out against this tactic in the past. Though I guess if the internet had been about in 1936 it would be full of threads blaming Clement Atlee for the rise of Mosely.

This thread is literally full of regurgitated anti-Corbyn propaganda masquerading as intelligent discourse while few of the arguments stand up to any sort of applied critical thinking. And now I'm not laughing so much as that it actually terrifying.

I confess I've not read the whole thread but I whole heartedly agree. I hoped he may be a breadth of fresh air but he's been worse than useless. Fundamentally he's not fulfilling his role, to be Leader of the Opposition. He's totally ineffective in opposing the Tories and totally unelectable. I have some pretty left wing views but I'd much rather have a Labour Party to the right of me in govt or within a shot of being in govt than a Labour Party aligning to my views but always in opposition. In fact what we have is worse, it's not even an effective opposition.

Personally tho, now cos of brexit I think the Labour Party in its current form is dead.

See Mrs Ruby I think we have a lot in common. I will vote Labour, of course I will. Like you, I would have a real problem with a Hunt or Kendall type. But all of them are still better than this lot and I will campaign for the Labour Party. We both despise the Tories; I think where we differ is that I don't think JC is the person to bring in the votes we need and we need a Labour government more than ever. I don't actually think he'd be a good PM either as he just doesn't have the temperament or the appeal and these are essentials for the job.

I can see why you think that internal critics like me aren't doing the Party or the country any good, but I honestly think JC is doing a great job himself of wrecking Labour's chance at government. Even if we all stopped complaining, he still wouldn't be any good as a leader and he really should recognise that himself. Wishing he were a good leader will not make it so.

I wish JC supporters would accept that many of us who are critical of him are as desperate for a Labour government as they are, and that many of us would also like a left of centre candidate, a viable one.

Springer so you think labour will win the next general election under Corbyn?

Exactly ruby. Springer you are mistaken to think party membership is a good indicator of electoral support when it is not.

No need to sigh Lalsy, it's just that when you only condemn insults flowing one way you give the impression that you condone those flowing the other way. Thanks for clarifying though.

I totally agree about respecting other opinions and wanting reasoned arguments, I feel the same about the "unelectable" mantra that began before Corbyn had even opened his mouth, not to mention all the whataboutery concerning what people think he would do in power that they then use to justify their opposition to our leader and sometimes even our party.

Exactly ruby. Springer you are mistaken to think party membership is a good indicator of electoral support when it is not.

^ this.

Plus I'm not being 'manipulated' by anything thank you.

He isn't a 'leader' he isn't liked amongst the wider electorate. The party membership doesn't equal all Labour voters.

Slarty, I take your point but there are umpteen examples on this thread of people who don't support JC being criticised for saying things they never said. So that's why I got a bit ratty! And to be honest, I can't see many pro-JC posts that are not ad hominem attacks on those who don't think he is a good leader. There are have been plenty of posts criticising him for specific things that are well documented (not propaganda) - his decades-long voting record on Europe for example, or his appearance before the select committee in the summer on anti-semitism (which was televised). Those things are a matter of public record and I would be really interested to know how his supporters view them as for me, they are deal-breakers.

Membership means nothing Labour won three consecutive elections when they had low membership. The Tory Party have low membership but are the most successful political party in history

The Labour Party are not a socialist party it is influenced by socialism. So yes I am supporting the right party if I was a socialist I would have joined the Socialist Party or the Socialist Labour Party who were formed when Labour reformed in the 1990's. I van agree with some of Corbyn's policies though many seem vague in how they would be implemented but I will not support such a poor leader and being a labour party member I have the chance to vote for someone I feel will be a better at leading the party and he will be challenged I believe sometime this year. If he isn't there is absolutely no chance of Labour winning the next election

Why do people persist in the belief that an increase in Labour Party membership must equal an increase in support for Labour across the electorate, when it demonstrably hasn't?

Under the electoral system we have, FPTP, the LP needs to get votes from the centre to stand a chance of winning. At the moment, that isn't going to happen.

Of more concern at the moment though is that the LP isn't providing an effective opposition.The current government pretty much have carte blanche to do as they please. And it's really not because people don't 'believe enough' in JC.

Thing is, Corbyn can't just sit there and expect votes for not being the Tories - he has to earn them for his party, which he conclusively isn't. Quite the opposite, considering his lies, cowardice and history. Farron gets out there to get votes so he has more claim on the not-a-Tory vote.

I've seen Corbyn speak to many times to be told he's anything but dire and, frankly, his disgraceful behaviour over Brexit and Article 50 is the nail in the coffin for me. I'm still a member, but only for the chance to vote against him in the next leadership election.

or his appearance before the select committee in the summer on anti-semitism

The anti sematism was a red herring but a lot of people confuse anti zionism with anti semitism, its not anti semetic to believe that what israel is doing in the west bank is attrocious

Don't think anyone has actually said that flippinada - from what I can see it was only brought up to demonstrate that he has invigorated some people and got them engaged in politics. If the membership had halved because of Corbyn he'd be getting crucified (and rightly so), yet when it increases because of him Labour supporters fall over themselves to put a negative spin on it.

The current government pretty much have carte blanche to do as they please.

At the end of the day the tories have a majority and whatever the main opposition party does the tories still have that majority