Well done Labour NEC - Corbyn can stand

[claig]

They have voted 18-14 to allow Corbyn to stand in the leadership election.

One less stitch-up in a season os stitch-ups.

Go Corbyn!

I think the point of Smith is to displace Corbyn - he's not necessarily someone who will be the leader in the longer term. Agree he's not the strongest looking candidate but he's junior enough to make it (for him) worth taking a punt I guess. Unfortunately he probably wont succeed so we're stuck with waiting for JC to fail at a general election before his adoring fans realise the hopeless situation the LP is in. But then JC doesnt seem to think winning elections is important so he may not go even then...

Sorry, has someone just compared big pharma to a terrorist group??? Big pharma, who I believe last year spent £50 billion on medical research (but of course they shouldn't have anything to do with medical research, that should be solely for the Medical Research Council, who only spent £500 million, according to JC)? That's comparable to what IS are doing? Christ on a fucking bike.

Hello, RiverTam, not 'someone' - me, LazyCake. We exchanged some messages back down the thread. Let's keep things friendly .

No, I wasn't suggesting that Isis and big pharma are morally equivalent. That would be ludicrous. I was saying that I couldn't understand why lijkk thought that being involved in a morally dubious industry was a plus point. Did you read the stuff I pasted about Smith's ex-employer Amgen? Not crimes on the scale of Isis, but pretty serious stuff nonetheless - especially if you were one of the cancer patients who were supplied with drugs that increased the likelihood of your death.

I'm well aware of how dodgy big pharma can be. Doesn't negate the point being made, nor make your comparison any less ludicrous.

Journalists have one of the lowest integrity ratings (by the public) of all professions. So do politicians, for that matter. Are Big Pharma really more morally dubious?

I imagine almost everyone sneering at Big Pharma has a pension fund very exposed to (among other things)... Big Pharma. It's a safe sector to invest in, defensive stocks are up sharply since 23 June.

Journalists have one of the lowest integrity ratings (by the public) of all professions. So do politicians, for that matter. Are Big Pharma really more morally dubious? I'm not talking about integrity ratings, or reputations. I am talking about specific finding of serious malpractice by a company in which Owen Smith held a senior role.

"Kevin McKenna: Why the powers that be fear Jeremy Corbyn

Words like "unedifying" and "unpleasant" don’t even begin to describe the campaign that the British establishment have undertaken to destroy Jeremy Corbyn. Try "sinister" and "malevolent" and "venomous" instead. Yet, when you assess the nature of the forces which are lined up against him and then observe how his very name brings them to a point where they begin to boil and froth, then you know Mr Corbyn must be a good man.

As well as the entire Conservative Party at Westminster and the editors and leader-writers of Britain’s right-wing press, Mr Corbyn is reviled by corporate Britain’s executive class and held in barely concealed contempt by the BBC in London. You can almost smell their fear and you begin to understand that they are out to stop him at all costs. Under no circumstances can an authentic Socialist, red in tooth and claw, be allowed access to the levers of power in the UK. For then, who knows what he might bring down upon these his enemies; each of whom has a stake in the way that business is done in this country and thus has much to lose if Mr Corbyn were ever to gain the keys to 10 Downing Street.

Around two thirds of Westminster’s parliamentary Labour Party loathe him too and seem to vie with each other daily in the chamber in their little acts of petty vindictiveness. They all saw how much Hilary Benn was cheered by the forces of the Right when, after dinner, he courageously stepped forward that night to show his support for the bombing of Syrian women and children from his green leather seat in the heart of London.
...
My God, I hope Mr Corbyn sees off this challenge to his leadership and that he makes all those people masquerading as Labour MPs walk the plank of re-selection. His enemies know only too well what he is about. And what he is about is ending the influence and corruption of the self-serving elite who have annexed Westminster. They all have good cause to fear this man."

www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/14637934.Kevin_McKenna__Why_the_powers_that_be_fear_Jeremy_Corbyn/

And then we have Oh-wen Smith, oh dear, oh dear, it is just getting worse and worse for the Establishment and the 172.

"Owen Smith told Leanne Wood she gets invited on Question Time because she is a woman"

www.walesonline.co.uk/news/politics/owen-smith-told-leanne-wood-11613820

More bad news about Oh-wen for the 172

"Labour challenger Owen Smith changed part of his CV after questions from the media

Owen Smith has changed an item on his CV after questions were raised about it.

The Guardian reports that the Labour leadership challenger had listed one of his former jobs on his website as "a director and member of the UK and Ireland board of Amgen," an American pharmaceutical company.

Smith did indeed work there — but the company denied to the newspaper that Smith sat on its board when contacted over tax, saying that "Owen Smith’s position at Amgen did not give him any involvement or influence on the topics raised here – he was an employee in the UK for 18 months and was not an officer of the company or board member."

Smith's camp countered that the term "board" was used as a "shorthand" term that reflected his seniority — but nonetheless have subsequently changed the CV on his website."

uk.businessinsider.com/labour-mp-owen-smith-changes-cv-after-questions-from-media-2016-7

So we know he lies, and that he's not smart enough not to get rumbled.

And what he is about is ending the influence and corruption of the self-serving elite who have annexed Westminster. They all have good cause to fear this man

Well we would know what he stood for if he actually gave policies rather than soundbites

Or stopped made a huge thing about MSM not mentioning Labour taking a council seat from UKIP without saying it was a parish council seat on a 13% turnout

Why on earth does it follow that he 'must be a good man' if the establishment dislikes him? That's rather childish 'goodies and baddies' think, isn't it?

The American establishment dislike Trump, and with good reason.

Personally, I am not particularly interested in whether or not Corbyn is 'good' in any abstract sense. I respect him for his track record: decades in Parliament speaking up for social justice and human rights, and the work he does with grassroots anti-poverty groups in his constituency. I also appreciate the fact he was one of the few MPs who didn’t have his snout in the expenses trough. It takes real strength of character to resist a widespread culture of corruption. This country needs more servants of Corbyn's calibre.

I respect him for his track record

Continually undermining the leader and the party.

He can't demand MPs are loyal to him when he has never been himself.

Complete hypocrisy

The leader was Tony Blair - Corbyn had a moral duty to oppose him. If only more MPs had followed his example.

It wasn't just Blair though, was it?

It was also Kinnock, Brown, and John Smith. I wonder if he'll still be proposing that a new leader be elected every year as he did in 2003 in the Morning Star?

I respect him for his track record

Would that be the track record of being a serial rebel and serially disloyal to the party and every leader for the last 33 years? - 537 times I think it is? (Corbyn, the do as I say, not as I do candidate)

Or would that be the track record of calling Hamas and Hezbollah 'friends' - which he has only this month apologised for (only took him a few years...)

Or would that be the track record of a guy who takes money to appear on Iranian state TV? Or maybe the track record of a guy who gave money to a well-known Holocaust denier (conveniently, he apparently doesn't bother to check out who he gives money to before doing so - wish we all that loaded)?

Or the track record of the guy whose 'policies' inclide giving back the Falklands to Argentina, in contravention of the very clearly expressed wishes of the people who actually live there?

Or the track record of the guy who has repeatedly failed to lead on agreed Labour Party policies and even worked against them, eg on Brexit, on Trident etc?

Or the track record of the guy who has spent a huge amount of time this year attending JC4PM rallies (events not cheap - £25 a head - where's that money going??) in preference to actually carrying out government business? Who doesn't have time to meet his own MPs or tell a shadow minister with cancer that she's been fired - but can find time for a week's holiday 3 weeks before the referendum and can find time to attend Stop the War events and personal rallies by his fan club?

He is NOT a 'nice, decent' guy. He is anything but. He is a vain, stupid, egotist with no leadership skills, no management skills, no people skills and no interest in representing ordinary working people. And why should he care? - born in a manor house, attended private school, never done a proper job outside politics in his life, huge, cushy pension guaranteed - you couldn't get someone who is more a member of the elite. Just like Farage and his phony 'man of the people' shtick.

The sooner he goes the better. He turns my stomach. And yes, I'm a long-term Labour voter.

The leader was Tony Blair - Corbyn had a moral duty to oppose him. If only more MPs had followed his example.

Funnily enough Blair wasn't leader for 30 years.

Corbyn also was behind Benn challenging Kinnock as leader and funnily enough was insistent that Kinnock got the correct number of MPs backing to get on the ballot. (Which he did). Something he wasn't prepared to do himself.

I partly concur toomuch. Corbyn is an egotistic demagogue with poor leadership skills and a tendency to make what can be most charitably described as naive associations with antisemitic thugs. His Brexit performance was reprehensible. But at the same time there is no reflection on the part of the PLP as to why their politics has been so pointedly rejected by their membership and the young more generally.

Neither do they offer an alternative beyond technocratic continuity.

In the Observer today David Blunkett writes:

"The truth is that to reduce inequality and tackle discrimination, we need to create a broad alliance for those who are not “disadvantaged and discriminated against” and who, in their desire for a better life, have to be persuaded that this involves changing the lives of others for the better. In other words, mutuality and reciprocity, not the politics of envy and victimhood."

I don't know what this means.

Such people say they believe in social justice and reducing inequality. But how? What do they propose to do about it? They and all of Corbyn's opponents expect people to take it on nothing but faith that they are social democrats. Given the complicity of many of them in the events of 2008, why should we? None of them delineate even the most vague policy programme for addressing structural inequality. None. Or at least Smith does but he's clearly trying to lie his corporate lobbying arse into power.

If they did advance an alternative to Corbyn's politics then I'm listening. Genuinely. I like many people agree with some of what Corbyn says doesn't think he has all the answers. We are open to alternative perspectives. If they were talking about stakeholder capitalism (workers co-owning companies), or ordoliberal capitalism/market socialism (the state ensuring markets don't become oligopolistic and function democratically), or any of the other European alternatives to neoliberal capitalism then that would be different. But they are not. And this quite reasonably leads people to suspect that what they really believe in is an Anglo-American shareholder capitalism that rewards the rich at the expense of everyone else; and by the 'people who are not disadvantaged and discriminated against' they mean filthy rich financiers and CEO's; and when they say they merely have to be 'persuaded' to have 'empathy' they mean they should be left alone to carry on; and when they say the 'politics of envy and victimhood' they mean social democracy.

So therefore, people will not listen to them. Because all Blunkett indicates, obliquely, is that he believes in more of the same oligopolistic, corrupt, neo-feudal capitalism with a few virtue signalling, sticking plaster policies thrown in. Of course no one should expect anyone to overturn a global economic system overnight, but what even incremental moves towards a more socially just distribution of wealth would a 'centerist' be prepared to make? Eff all. And neither can they even reasonably offer power anymore. Over a 100 seats on the back of this hollow cynicism? Don't make me laugh.

If these people really did believe in democratic capitalism then they would pledge to slash rates for small businesses, limit the power of multinationals, increase corporation tax and abolish exploitative employment practices like zero hour contracts. And they certainly would not, when in government, have introduced market mechanisms into what are supposed to be democratically accountable state services. They don't believe in aspirational free enterprise; they believe in neoliberal capitalism. Because neoliberal capitalists is what they are.

Excellent and very informative post from JohnJ80.

I don't think Corbyn's perfect, but right now he's the only one who is offering the change that is so desperately needed. And who've Labour got who would do better in a General Election? Angela Eagle? Owen Smith, fgs...?

I agree with a lot of what you say JohnJ80. Many in Scotland, including myself, regard the SNP as well to the right of where "traditional Labour values" are. They vote for them because they are well to the Left of the PLP. Labour started off in control of the Scottish Parliament and lost because it did not break away from the Westminster consensus in Holyrood. There was an alternative Left of centre Party in the SNP. (In the context of the 100 seats you mention the last GE saw Labour lose circa 50 Westminster seats to the SNP).

I read some analysis looking at the voting profile of Labour marginal seats and correlating it with Brexit. For Labour the safe seats are in Remain areas but the marginal seats which win general elections are in heavily Brexit areas. Owen Smith and others in the PLP still fighting the Remain battle looks politically naive at best or just plain stupid.

I also disagree with Blunkett and his desire to build alliances with the super rich. In London the oppressed masses will vote Labour and their capitalistic masters will vote Conservative. Continued success for the Masters dictates that the few exploit the many and so there will naturally be more Left wing voters = safe Labour seats.

The capitalist model has not been working out so well for the non-London part of the UK for quite some time.

Corbyn talks the talk but I see no evidence at all he walks the walk.

See here this very damning post from Richard Murphy, Corbyn's former tax adviser, on how Corbyn and McDonnell have sold the whole left-wing ethos up the river.

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/07/21/john-mcdonnell-is-right-we-do-disagree-on-macroeconomic-policy/

What Corbyn really cares about is not helping the poor or over-turning the neolliberal consensus. What really gets him going is the pointless gesture politics that is manna to the right-wing press and loses voters hand over fist - he wants an end to the monarchy (cf not singing the national anthem), he wants to give Falklands back to Argentina in opposition to the wishes of the people who actually live there, he wants to foment violence in the Middle East (cf Stop the War's approval of violent attacks on Israeli civilians), he is best mates with Putin and Iran, he is a fan of the IRA, etc etc etc.

His foreign politics is electoral poison, all of it, and whilst his domestic agenda is sounder than the PLPs in recent years, his mad foreign policies risk the association in the minds of the voters of all left-wing domestic policies with frankly barking foreign policy objectives. In this way, he risks Labour being out of power for good even if he does stand down after losing an election.

Read that link - it is damning in the extreme, by someone who worked closely with Corbyn and McDonnell to help them formulate their strategy.

Here are two more comments from him on Labour's current front bench:

"What I do know is that Jeremy et al are hopeless managers at almost any level. I genuinely wish it was otherwise . I am deeply disappointed by what has happened

But I remain committed to the ideas and do want a government committed to a mixed economy and much more than nationalisation of the natural monopolies

That is why IO will tell you that you’re making a mistake backing Corbyn because he will never deliver it"

and

"I want real opposition in this country – not a kindergarten variety, at best – and I’m not now sure JC could even do that

Have you even seen how pathetic his launch statement for re-election is? It’s worse than student politics standard "

From the comments here:

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/07/22/what-happens-to-labour-now/

'Read that link - it is damning in the extreme, by someone who worked closely with Corbyn and McDonnell to help them formulate their strategy.'

Yes, it is true, Corbyn and McDonnell are weak, they have caved into the Establishment and the stooges. Corbyn allowed a free vote on Syria, he never sacked half the stooges which he should have done near the start so that their coup would have failed. McDonnell is a joke saying he is friends with these MPs who are stitching him up left right and centre. They are both soft. But they are still better than the Establishment 172.

Most voters don't treat foreign policy as seriously as domestic and economic policy and on foreign policy, if Corbyn can rein his stooges in, then there will be no Blairite warmongering policies and most people will be happy with that as it will save us lots of money and be more moral.

If Corbyn beats the stooges and if he then finally grows a backbone and McDonnell stops trying to be friends with everyone and starts implementing a policy, then there is a chance that we will get a different politics with different ideas.

Oh, toooomuch, I'm an ardent Corbynista but starting to feel a bit disconcerted by some of your arguments...

Agreed with much of what said about concerns re: gesture politics. I was disappointed when last week Corbyn named his priorities as 'inequality, prejudice and discrimination.' It sounded to me a bit like same-old identity politics, when what I'd really like to see is the kind of economic reforms John described in his post.

I shall read the Richard Murphy article, but in the meantime, I return to my previous point: who else in Labour is promising change? We can't go on as we have been, so I am prepared to get behind Corbyn.

Richard Murphy says

'The great disappointment about John McDonnell is he won’t be the radical shadow chancellor we need.'

and that is right because McDonnell is weak as jelly and the Establishment and the 172 know that. So they have put Owen Smith up to challenge Corbyn and Oh-wen tells us that the only reason he is doing it is because Corbyn is not a leader but that Oh-wen agrees with most of Corbyn's excellent ideas and policies. But Oh-wen takes the Establishment line in being for remaining in the EU even though the people voted against it and he ignores the Scottish voters who are for scrapping Trident because Oh-wen knows best on the EU and Trident.

Oh-wen is the Establishment's candidate to rescue Labour from Corbyn in case Corbyn doesn't do what he is told in future, particularly on wars.