Jeremy Corbyn vs Angela Eagle

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/b1/e8/aa/b1e8aa32b00a88a716558be4cf10c099.jpg

of course, all this is assuming that Corbyn is not kept off the ballot, and that no other challengers stand in addition to Eagle. Labour currently has over 500,000 members, with at least 60% of those having joined in the last year:

http://labourlist.org/2016/07/post-referendum-boost-means-labour-now-has-over-half-a-million-members/

people seem to think that a majority of new people joining are pro-Corbyn, though it's hard to be sure and there are indications that some anti-Corbyn types who left the party when he became leader are now rejoining to vote against him. it's also been pointed out that a lot of the new members are likely people who signed up as £3 "registered supporters" in order to vote for Corbyn last year, and so would not add anything to his share of the vote. still, another Corbyn victory seems to be the most likely outcome at this point, yes?

Eagle apparently wants people who have joined in the last six months to be barred from voting (according to sympathetic press) so idk if she is confident that 130k people have signed up in the last two weeks to vote against him.

I can't imagine a big portion of the 100000 new party members being anti-Corbyn, but I don't have any solid evidence to back this inkling up. How does anybody know? You can't even reliably poll people anymore.

xp that's interesting, how would they justify a ban? concerns about "entryism"? (ignoring the fact that if every single member of every trot groupsicle in the UK joined the Labour party that would still probably amount to less than 5% of 130k?) also clashes with Kinnock's appeal for people to join to vote against Corbyn, "Saving Labour" etc

there seem to be a fair number of complaints from long term members about newly signed up Corbynistas taking control of the direction of the party (and often not turning up to local meetings or campaigns), whereas the people who have spent years knocking on doors and stuffing envelopes are more sceptical of Corbyn, not sure how accuarate this is. it makes an odd reversal from the days when the party's activist base was assumed to be more radical than the party membership in general (and the right of the party pushed for one member one vote for this very reason)

politics has become so shit it has gone full circle and become amazing

this is def correct re: leaflets and such. they have tried to introduce similar restrictions on votes for the Manchester mayoral candidates

Some people's definition of "entryism" is very undemocratic. The numbers Corbyn gets probably goes beyond young people and the old left, but this phenomenon is not something that interests the media. They just want him to disappear so we can continue on with a 2 party system.

/1 party system

political parties complaining because too many people want to get involved but don't want to do the donkey work that used to be yr apprenticeship, fucking parliamentary democracy man, get out of the way you staid fuckers

I won't be voting but in a straight contest then Corbyn without thinking twice, and I don't even rate Corbyn particularly highly as a leader. And if I'm thinking that then Eagle is going to be absolutely slaughtered in a contest with over half a million voters.

I'll be voting for Corbyn. But I don't want to get into the adversarial stuff - I quite like eagle! I dislike her challenge, though.

i will be voting for corbyn, again

though, not living in england, i will rather be replying to an email from my dad which will say 'ballot paper arrived for you, do you want to vote for jeremy bloody corbyn again,' to which i will reply 'thanks dad'

i am sort of curious about the kinds of behavior which corbynites don't take part in, and which, it is implied, possess some kind of magical efficacy: as if half a million people turning up to local meetings would somehow lead to socialism in our time via some underpants-gnomic middle step

i mean, i feel like its just the over-40 version of sharing a bunch of tiresome shit on social media really

it's an old school model of politics - hard-working member selflessly grafting away on tasks that are completely fucking useless just because that's how the game is played

I guess the concern is not just that new members are less likely to be activists, but that they are setting up a parallel activist base that operates through social media and Momentum rather than the traditional CLP structure (but the local parties still select council and parliamentary candidates and representatives for the conference amongst various other things)

Circling the wagons because the next generation has rejected your failed methods.

im not with the vitriol against corbyn i keep seeing on social media but all i seem to keep seeing from him is about wanting to be someone questioning the tories in power, there is little interest in actually leading the country. obv this might be the best we can hope for right now if may isnt going to call an election, but it just speaks of the low ambition in labour right now. i know hes prob feeling quite pleased right now with the boost in members, and this new swell in support, but while corbyn makes good sense as someone to challenge the tories, what about when there is an opportunity to perhaps defeat them? i dont imagine corbyn would know what to do, or be happy in that position. supporting corbyn for that reason i think is only good for the short term.

Why do you imagine that?

The idea of trying to stop people who joined your political party, for any means or reasoning, from having a say is absolutely abhorrent. To say "we want to ignore our own supporters" really giving a strong message to labour being the opposition to THE MAN, man.

https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13612215_10153734318186463_8270868887075675891_n.jpg?oh=25a22ee7c28ed8fd2c612eb5a3b914a8&oe=57F56865

i think hes deleted that tweet though.

the newer one is -

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en-gb"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">I want Labour to win power to democratise it. Focusing on "winning" alone hoards power, ignores real needs & ultimately leads to defeat</p>— Jon Lansman (@jonlansman) <a href="https://twitter.com/jonlansman/status/752105701640732672";>10 July 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

argh. https://twitter.com/jonlansman/status/752105701640732672

In the absence of a better challenger, Corbyn again. Got to be better options than Eagle, surely?

christ the replies to that tweet from Blue Labour, i can't do this to myself

Hilary Benn came out swinging - reminding him that Labour winning elections paved the way for free eye tests for the over 60s and SureStart. Boom.

New Labour - did a lot of good work for charidee, didn't like to talk about it

In the grand scheme of things, who's to say that 272 dead Iraqis per SureStart centre opened wasn't a ratio worth paying? History will judge but it's a bit early now.

Eagle's launch doesn't seem to have contained much in the way of policy direction.

This vote was a message from millions in our country who felt no one had listened to them for a very long time. For many, it was a howl of pain.

Now.. "How on earth do we bring hope to parts of our country that feel they have been neglected for years?”

“How do we protect jobs, investment and living standards?”

“How do we remain an open tolerant society?”

“And will we stay a United Kingdom?”

idk but setting out some kind of vision wouldn't go amiss.

as a former SureStart employee i would go with "not worth it"

“How do we protect jobs, investment and living standards?”

There's an awful lot of people looking for a bit more than "protection" for their shitty low-paid jobs

“How do we remain an open tolerant society?”

lol you were parachuted into your constituency and you worked with Blair and Straw

“And will we stay a United Kingdom?”

nobody sane gives a fuck about this btw

Can it really be less than a year ago that she was complaining Osborne brought the National Living Wage in too quickly?

Eagle asked why she can beat May, simply replies: "Because she's a Tory".

Seems legit.

Does Tory lite beat Tory.
Sounds like a Taste test, or a Harry Hill skit.

If the opposition to Corbyn were putting up anyone at all inspiring or with any apparent integrity even, you know, a bit ballsy and confident I'd think about it. But they're not so obvioulsy I'm going to vote for Corbyn.

Eagle asked why she can beat May, simply replies: "Because she's a Tory".

This phrase should be included in style guide books to demonstrate the importance of quotation marks.

the "Because she's a Tory" thing seems particularly unfortunate given that Eagle's whole campaign seems to boil down to "I can win and Jeremy can't" (she repeatedly refused to answer questions about policy differences between herself and Corbyn during her Peston interview, saying that it's not about policy but "leadership"), if she can't give a non-embarrassing answer to the question "how can you defeat May" then what's the point?

THis leadership that she's shown and Jeremy so clearly can't deliver. Where has she shown it?

Did anybody show the full video of her announcement. Is more of it sneaking out now?
Or was the Conservative announcement so much more important. I guess it's a lot more immediate.
BUt God would love it if nothing really could happen before the break.
Other tahn Eagle getting laughed at a lot or something.

Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.

Eagle has just dismissed John Humphreys reading out her voting record on Iraq, Chilcot, ID cards, welfare, etc as "a Corbynista meme".

Politics aside, idk how anyone can claim she has the media skills Corbyn is missing.

That much was absolutely confirmed by her clomping about in clown shoes yesterday.

She is actively worse than Liz Kendall, Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper etc. John Humphrys wasn't even playing hardball with her and it was just this car crash interview.

She has no response to the Iraq issue and she should really have worked one out by now.

The number of people making the same joke re 'Eagle attacks child' is as big a reason to reject her as any.

Haven't even been able to bear to watch her. It's so obvious she's being used by the progress mob and is gonna be dumped like an old mattress very soon.

I assume this is partially motivated by a desire to spend as little time in her constituency as possible. I grew up in Wallasey. I get it.

talking of which:

https://twitter.com/dats/status/752800373568659456

I assume this is partially motivated by a desire to spend as little time in her constituency as possible. I grew up in Wallasey. I get it.

― Michael Jones, Tuesday, July 12, 2016 10:48 AM (8 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Is this new for her, has she been hands on there?
Just wondering how good she is for anything. I should pay more attention to the political thing but am living abroad anyway.
& really not getting a very good impression of her from the last couple of weeks. Has she got a lot of support.
Still not sure about structure fo coup, or what was said to the people involved. Get rid of the trot and we'll put this person in charge. & that was the motivation. Or just get rid of the trot and we'll put this placeholder there and the Tories will fund us a bit more to be the overly similar opposition perpetually?

I'm mesmerised by the moment she realises there's no one left at her campaign launch to take questions, just the panic in her eyes, that's some Guy Goma shit.

Eagle has just dismissed John Humphreys reading out her voting record on Iraq, Chilcot, ID cards, welfare, etc as "a Corbynista meme".

people are not throwing enough bricks at these cretins

They've been talking up the idea of another leadership challenge for as long as it has been obvious Smith was going to lose.

The objective will be to try to recruit 100k more to the Saving Labour camp and have another go when they think they have the electorate they need.

― On a Raqqa tip (ShariVari), Saturday, September 24, 2016 1:13 PM (fifty minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I'd think that the leadership challenge was a constant want from that part of the party and that Owen Smith was just a current manifestation. Which is why the only way to get rid of that challenge or a manifestation thereof would be to try to get rid of that element which is what I thought a purge would at least be attempting to do.
But would also think that the Party wasn't going to remain at any one point for any long period of time, since the party consists of a mass compromise over issues that are in continual change over time.
Just thinking that the elements of time and change are central to any mass movement so focus is continually shifting.
But would hope that getting rid of something that is inevitably going to create conflict at any one point must be a positive.
Or something to that effect.

hold an olive branch out to the right whilst insisting you have a mandate to control the party's agenda, let the right wing fucks purge themselves or show themselves up with more attempts to ignore the membership and unseat Corbyn. a wise strategy from the Great Leader.

think i might develop a Maoist infatuation with Jezza now just for the lulz

― door unlawful carnal knowledge (Noodle Vague), Saturday, 24 September 2016 12:27 (one hour ago) Permalink

I'm already there and I can tell you I like the view

He's the greatest guy in history
From the town of Shrewsbury

point of order: this is in fact me (runner-up = charles darwin obv) since corbyn is from chippenham, even if he did grow up in north east shropshire

james butler on what's next for labour

What's happening about the purged masses. I thought if Corbyn won there would be an attempt to get the loads of people that the PLP had excluded from the party back into it, is that possible without purging those who'd purged them?

many months of appeals i should think

xp such hubris to put yourself above Darwin and Percy Thrower:p

I have only briefly listened to some unconvincing and equivocal PLP responses to their defeat on R4 this aft. But i get the feeling they will try a slower and more effective game next, but that might be crediting them with more nous than they have. It was lovely listening to some butthurt Labour right activist types ringing R4 this aft about the death of "their" party.

I'd love to know how many people out of the 250000 purged actually joined to support Smith. It probably wouldn't have made a shit of difference, but it does highlight the PLP's authoritarian habit of running roughshod over people rather than winning them over.

what the

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cs4MeFGWIAAyhn_.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cs5HEOlVYAApcSA.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CtDDISBWIAAUZ53.jpg

https://twitter.com/owensmith2016/status/778573499233296389

https://twitter.com/owensmith2016/status/778637926825459712

https://twitter.com/owensmith2016/status/778951996959186948

he's either the self-clowning oven of UK politics, or the greatest conceptual artist of all time

listening to 5live Pienaar coverage. shocking spin against Corbyn and for his opponents.

I am appalled at the way the anti-Corbyn Labour people have undermined, abused and launched a coup against him, staged a contest, have lost -- and now react by saying they're going to dictate terms, making demands, setting ultimatums, etc. They lost! After trashing their party and dragging it through the mud! When will they have some dignity and modesty? (Mostly, I suppose, never.)

Just makes the idea that nothing is going to be done in retribution all the more annoying. At least they'd learn there wasa line they couldn't cross.

& the idea that people who were bounced out of the party vote because they might just support the person that did wind up getting voted in aren't going to get back into the party without further struggle is more than slightly wrong innit?

agree. especially on your second point.

we are told (by Sadiq Khan!) that there is now a danger of a 'left-wing purge'. of course there has only been one purge - a right-wing purge.

what retribution there should be, I'm not sure. but yes it's infuriating that these people are always placated and treated with kid gloves, then say they're being purged and attacked and complain.

it seems to be groundhog day with Yvette Cooper and she sounds a bit confused, she is still insisting Corbyn needs to deploy the complete control she constantly infers he has over every unpleasant idiot on social media. Even the abuse she is quoting is from way out of the Labour sphere of influence, I mean from Trump supporters - wtf!

"She told the paper: "The worst I get as a Labour MP is usually from the far right. Recent grim tweets include an Australian who wants to behead me and a Trump supporter who hates refugees.

"But no matter where it is from, abuse and intimidation entrench prejudice, silence debate and poison democracy. Even a small minority can drag everyone else down."

She said Mr Corbyn and Mr McDonnell should "insist on higher standards and proper enforcement".

yes - this is bonkers in exactly the ways you say.

btw this thread doesn't come up on New Answers for me - is this a general problem?

the situation above re the Blairites' reaction makes me feel about them the way that ILX poster 'conrad' does.

Surely just about any other political figure would at least try to clear up what caused the coup and the following campaign. Isn't that almost the definition of damage limitation.

So, since it has already been said here before the results of the election came through that there would be less sympathy for Corbyn if there were further attempts to unseat him, that idea must be more widespread than this list.
I really can't see a lack of action along those lines, to try to make sure his status is more stable at least, can be seen as a good thing.
Unless it is as has been suggested by Noodle Vague that the negative forces should be left to out themselves. But would everybody see them as negative forces anyway?
From what I'm seeing the idea that Labour is a coalition of a lot of different leftish perspectives is going to continually present problems in itself. But having several smaller parties trying to establish themselves in the wake of the party would presumably just leave things way too open for the Tories to become almost a one party state at least for long enough to take things even further into the shit.

Metaphorically speaking I'm reminded of the joke about the religious nut stuck in a flood who turns away the rescue boat because he's waiting for God to send him the sign he's been assured of.
Or to put taht more clearly , most people would think that if one was in a position of leadership one would deal with the element that was causing one trouble instead of just waiting for it to clear itself up. & the act of not clearing it up when it needs to be might just be seen as becoming the problem that needs to be dealt with. Something about cybernetically guiding a coalition of people who don't necessarily get along together and are likely to be infighting to some degree into something that does at least function together as a vehicle of good being good leadership which is the role that JC is supposed to be in. & that cybernetic guidance possibly taking the shape of reprimanding or severely limiting the power of the element that is currently out of balance and therefore rocking the boat etc.

That makes sense.

It almost feels like something 'conrad' would say.

So, I have a constituency party meeting on Wednesday. Given we voted to support Smith, should I demand the resignation of the Smith supporting office-holders? The danger would be that they might expect me to do something...

Exterminate All The Brutes imo

This is why the Tories are so much better at grabbing power. Fucking Rees-Mogg staunchly supported four people in the space of as many weeks and nobody's calling for his resignation

tbf to the lad that's just about supporting A.N. Tory, Corbyn's problem is the Tories who will never support him, electable or not

it was fun watching a seething heidi alexander on the politics show, she has no answer for "if the PLP were concerned about Corbyn bringing the party too far too the left, why were basically Smith's domestic policies identical?"

She is another one trying to call the terms of defeat without any leverage. Like why on earth would Corbyn let the PLP fill his shadow cabinet with his enemies as a compromise? He might as well resigned back in april if he was going to immediately capitulate after another leadership victory.

there's been a notable absence of contrition and bridge-building so far hasn't there? i think Corbyn can live with that for a few days, allow the worst culprits to show everybody what they are. the centrists - cough - have to come to him now, unless they're genuinely prepared to split.

Meanwhile conference has decided not to debate Brexit.

Chuka took a break from making tough on immigrants speeches to make some conciliatory noises earlier, but he definitely has a touch of the Rees-Mogg about him. I'd love to hear what McDonnell is saying behind closed doors about the no-compromise crew's offer of selecting their shadow cabinet.

That Liz Carr speech at the conference about the real effects of austerity on the disabled is telling it like it is.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/actress-liz-carr-stuns-audience-8911590

That's some speech

I wonder how many present who were clapping the speech were cowardly abstainers who aided and abetted the tories in bringing in the welfare bill.

Andy Burnham is beside her in the photo. I like him. I like the way that throughout the Corbyn era, he has knuckled down and got on with working for Corbyn, whether he entirely agrees with him or not, pausing only occasionally to make quite polite appeals for other people to do the same.

Jeremy Corbyn is doing well !

he needs to do better

http://www.primaryteaching.co.uk/prodimg/H69_1_Zoom.jpg

lol fair

best be safe and order more of the ones with the red star

His own work is good but he distracts others.

Untapped potential from the rosy-cheeked whippersnapper.

The net tightens around Stevolende

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/19/angela-eagle-abusive-homophobic-messages-labour-members

Can you stop using my name please, I find you creepy enough already.

Had hoped we'd seen the last of Eagle after that manipulative shite she pulled earlier this year. Had hoped people would have wised up to her after that. Obviously some people didn't.

...

in other news, Mark Sandell has been expelled from Labour along with 15 other members of Brighton and Hove CLP. the CLP is going to be split in 3:

http://www.brightonandhovenews.org/2016/10/19/suspended-labour-official-expelled-as-brighton-and-hove-party-faces-break-up/

Can you stop using my name please, I find you creepy enough already.

Had hoped we'd seen the last of Eagle after that manipulative shite she pulled earlier this year. Had hoped people would have wised up to her after that. Obviously some people didn't.

― Stevolende, Wednesday, October 19, 2016 9:24 AM (four hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

sweep sweep

Stevo you do realise that a guy has actually admitted to sending her a death threat, right?

Corbyn more Baldrick than May, sez Baldrick

@Tony_Robinson
To those tweeting me about 'MSM', Corbyn faces no more hostile media than every Lab leader in history. He's just inept at dealing with it

for a bloke who presents history programmes that's one v short memory right there

liquidate all these fucking awful New Labour luvvies imo

is complaining about the "MSM" a thing now?

always and #4evah

a bunch of otherwise sensible leftist friends of mine talk a lot about conspiracies where I would be reluctant to use that word but there's no reason they're not broadly correct