Film, Media & TV0 min ago
So Now Labour Deselections Begin
Luciana Berger MP, Labour, Liverpool Wavertree, first to face Corbynite/Momentum/Trot calls for deselection for not being sufficiently pro The Great Leader. There are also claims of anti-semitism.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by scooping. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
De-Selecting useless Labour MPs is now easier - Whoo hoo!
Unless they happen to be Jewish, where upon they will play the 'It's Anti Semitism ' card.
There are many Labour MPs who find themselves under scrutiny for perceived dis-loyalty and voting against Labour Party policy. It is their voting record that will be their downfall, not their ancestry or religious beliefs.
Unless they happen to be Jewish, where upon they will play the 'It's Anti Semitism ' card.
There are many Labour MPs who find themselves under scrutiny for perceived dis-loyalty and voting against Labour Party policy. It is their voting record that will be their downfall, not their ancestry or religious beliefs.
Corbyn is being rather ‘previous’. His lost election that he bizarrely sees as successful seems to have gone to his head. He’s already backtracked on what he said pre-election, and he now wields the heavy hand of power with what he thinks is impunity. I wonder if he’s showing his true colours just a bit too soon?
https:/
Let's not forget, TTT, that the British version of the Night of the Long Knives was the general "defenestration" of one third of his Cabinet by Harold Macmillan! No Labour Prime Minister he!
Let's not forget, TTT, that the British version of the Night of the Long Knives was the general "defenestration" of one third of his Cabinet by Harold Macmillan! No Labour Prime Minister he!
"His lost election that he bizarrely sees as successful seems to have gone to his head."
I still wish I could understand why you continue to plug this line. It's as if context doesn't matter to you, or something. Labour had 232 seats, and looked like they'd be lucky to hold onto 200 of those -- they were clearly in disarray, clearly going backwards, and clearly heading for electoral oblivion. And then the campaign started, and May presided over a "shambles" of a campaign, and Labour were able to make gains -- enough to stop the Tories having a majority of any kind when it was for a long time expected that majorities of 100 or greater were well within reach.
So yes, Labour lost -- but to pretend that this is somehow the only part of the story that matters is a remarkable conceit. They shouldn't have merely "lost" -- Labour should have been crushed out of all existence and given no chance of meaningful power for another two or three elections at minimum. It should have made Labour's 1983 disaster look like a triumph in comparison.
As it is, none of this happened, Corbyn having seen Labour to a much healthier position in Parliament than previously, putting paid to any serious notion that Labour under Corbyn is "unelectable".
In those circumstances -- yes, I suppose he would be well-justified in turning to those in his party who opposed him and saying "get behind me now". That might not bode well for those from his own wing who bashed Corbyn for so long. For my part, I hope he does recognise that yes, it wasn't a victory, and yes there is therefore a way to go to win outright, and that means that he should be prepared to move some ground himself to bring the party together. But the story of 2017 shows that bringing the party together under Corbyn can deliver an electable Labour party -- even on quite a left-wing platform.
Meanwhile, perhaps the Tories should sort out their own house? With all the troubles Labour faced, and the disaster for which they were headed, they couldn't even reached a working majority of any size on their own. It's a pretty poor result. A technical win, yes -- but only with the DUP's help, and only at the expense of almost everything of substance that was in the manifesto.
Context makes a great deal of difference.
I still wish I could understand why you continue to plug this line. It's as if context doesn't matter to you, or something. Labour had 232 seats, and looked like they'd be lucky to hold onto 200 of those -- they were clearly in disarray, clearly going backwards, and clearly heading for electoral oblivion. And then the campaign started, and May presided over a "shambles" of a campaign, and Labour were able to make gains -- enough to stop the Tories having a majority of any kind when it was for a long time expected that majorities of 100 or greater were well within reach.
So yes, Labour lost -- but to pretend that this is somehow the only part of the story that matters is a remarkable conceit. They shouldn't have merely "lost" -- Labour should have been crushed out of all existence and given no chance of meaningful power for another two or three elections at minimum. It should have made Labour's 1983 disaster look like a triumph in comparison.
As it is, none of this happened, Corbyn having seen Labour to a much healthier position in Parliament than previously, putting paid to any serious notion that Labour under Corbyn is "unelectable".
In those circumstances -- yes, I suppose he would be well-justified in turning to those in his party who opposed him and saying "get behind me now". That might not bode well for those from his own wing who bashed Corbyn for so long. For my part, I hope he does recognise that yes, it wasn't a victory, and yes there is therefore a way to go to win outright, and that means that he should be prepared to move some ground himself to bring the party together. But the story of 2017 shows that bringing the party together under Corbyn can deliver an electable Labour party -- even on quite a left-wing platform.
Meanwhile, perhaps the Tories should sort out their own house? With all the troubles Labour faced, and the disaster for which they were headed, they couldn't even reached a working majority of any size on their own. It's a pretty poor result. A technical win, yes -- but only with the DUP's help, and only at the expense of almost everything of substance that was in the manifesto.
Context makes a great deal of difference.
Latest Posts
Motoring1 min ago
Spoiler Alert. Arsenal V Chelsea
Football7 mins ago
Crosswords8 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.