[davidjay]

Three quidders and spending the 2010 election campaign saying "We're sorry and we won't do it again" every time anything introduced by Blair was mentioned. Milliband was the anti-Kinnock, paving the way for what came next

[Crabcakes]

I don't think it was wrong to move leftwards, and I don't have a particular problem with Miliband being rehabilitated - he didn't lead in a vacuum and I suspect was poorly advised and/or changes were well meant but then hijacked by others with ulterior motives.

And even then, there were no guarantees of anything - we just ended up with the worst case scenario through a catalogue of unfortunate events. I think the issue has always been one of competence, quality and, in relation to that, arrogance and pettiness. For example if John McDonnell had been persuaded to stand instead of Corbyn we'd be having a different conversation right now. Not all rainbows I'm certain, but I suspect there would have been considerably fewer instances of complete indifference from the party leader on major topics because it isn't something he happens to be interested in.

[Crabcakes]

Or to put it another way, I've a lot more time for people who meant to do good but it went wrong in the execution than I have people who just want to tell you how good they are but don't actually do anything (or actively and deliberately make things worse, then absolve themselves of blame).

[Malcolm Armsteen]

I don't think it was wrong to move leftwards, and I don't have a particular problem with Miliband being rehabilitated - he didn't lead in a vacuum and I suspect was poorly advised and/or changes were well meant but then hijacked by others with ulterior motives.

Certainly on the £3 Trots he was strongly advised (by a party colleague of mine at a high level and by the London delegates to the special conference) not to do such a bloody stupid thing, but he insisted. Idée fixe.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Think Corbyn won on pre-existing members, didn't he?

[Malcolm Armsteen]

Yes. But the £3 Trots were the ones that took over the CLPs.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Lots of them would have come in on the back of leader Jez anyway, wouldn't they? People like that weren't put off by membership fees in the eighties.

[Abernathy]

It’s fair to say that existing Trots, who had been keeping their heads down when the party was sanely led, suddenly felt emboldened by the ascension of Corbyn to the leadership. I can think of at least 6 or 7 pretty execrable Trots, long- term party members, who suddenly started turning up at branch and constituency meetings and making a right fucking nuisance of themselves.

Of course this period was also the time of Trots taking over local party executive structures. I’d been a Branch Secretary for about 12 years, but I was ousted in favour of a loathsome, none-too-bright Trot harridan, who was admittedly not a long term party member but who had indeed been emboldened by Corbynism. Of course, I’m not bitter. . But I’ve not been to a branch or constituency meeting since, because, well, I don’t have to any more. The local party is having their first physical meeting this week, after 18 months or so of virtual meetings on Zoom. I’m not even tempted (but I’m also currently in the beautiful Brecon Beacons).

[Malcolm Armsteen]

Ditto.

Except for the Brecon Beacons.

[Abernathy]

I think the issue has always been one of competence, quality and, in relation to that, arrogance and pettiness. For example if John McDonnell had been persuaded to stand instead of Corbyn we'd be having a different conversation right now. Not all rainbows I'm certain, but I suspect there would have been considerably fewer instances of complete indifference from the party leader on major topics because it isn't something he happens to be interested in.

Yes, I definitely agree with that. Embittered Trots are fond of citing a key part of their mythology that holds that there was concerted, widespread, and virulent opposition to Corbyn’s leadership from the very instant the leadership election result was declared. That isn’t true - or at any rate it may have been true of say, Peter Mandelson, but not me - or many other party members. I actually wanted Corbyn to succeed. Of course I did - I desperately wanted a Labour government, like every other Labour member or supporter. I took the view that although I certainly hadn’t voted for Corbyn as leader (I voted for Yvette Cooper), Corbyn had been legitimately elected with a very substantial majority of the party membership, and it was entirely reasonable to afford him the opportunity to prove that he could deliver what he promised.

Of course it didn’t take long for it to become apparent that he could not. I’d have been genuinely pleased if Corbyn had succeeded, but it was soon clear that he was just about the least suitable person imaginable to be Labour’s leader at that time - at any time, in fact. On grounds of competency, temperament, ability, and most definitely a long train of political baggage in the nature of dodgy associations with pseudo-terrorist organisations that must have had political hacks in the hostile right-wing news media rubbing their hands with glee at this manna from heaven, he really was the very last person Labour needed. This all crystallised, for me, around the catastrophic EU referendum result of 2016, and Corbyn’s highly significant portion of responsibility for that result.

So yes, McDonnell has demonstrated multiple times that he is more savvy, more media-friendly, more competent, more intelligent, more of a strategic thinker, and more pragmatic than Corbyn. A McDonnell leadership might well have succeeded where Corbyn’s was, in hindsight, doomed always to fail.

[davidjay]

A million times over, this. As I said some years back, I didn't want him as leader, I didn't think he would ever be Prime Minister, but I did think he might act as a Farage-type figure dragging the political landscape back towards the centre, then a couple of years before the election was due he would hand over to someone more electable. What we got was a stubborn, idealistic fool with appalling judgement who pandered to equally idealistic fools, made no attempt to connect with the electorate, and whose overriding legacy was to make Labour - the party which has equality for all at the very heart of its philosophy - appear in the minds of the electorate to be fundamentally racist. But for all that, I still wanted him to be Prime Minister because even Jeremy Corbyn would have been better for this country than any Tory.

Move forward eighteen months and unlike just about every other failed party leader he refused to go quietly and refused to give any sort of support to his successor. Instead he continues to fight his own personal battle, to encourage his troops to attack the party and allow the narrative to develop whereby they insist Labour would have won in 2019 but the centrists wanted to lose. I believe he has damaged the Labour Party more than anyone in its history.

[Oboogie]

I am currently arguing with a someone on Twitter who is demanding that Lias Nandy is expelled from the Party for stating that she would campaign for the Labour Party in Islington North.

[Boiler]

Correct me if I'm wrong here - I usually am - but Islington North is represented by an "Independent" MP, is it not?

[Abernathy]

I am currently arguing with a someone on Twitter who is demanding that Lias Nandy is expelled from the Party for stating that she would campaign for the Labour Party in Islington North.

Yes, this is quite bizarre. In the not-at-all-improbable scenario that Corbyn continues pig-headedly to refuse to apologise for playing down the EHRC report and thereby have the Labour whip restored to him, and ultimately then decides to stand in Islington North as an independent, Labour members observing party rules will support and campaign for the official Labour candidate. This of course includes Lisa Nandy.

The obvious bonus arising from this scenario is that not only that Corbyn will automatically expel himself from the party for standing against an official Labour candidate, but so will all those fuckwitted Corbyn fanboys and girls who will be supporting his campaign.

[Abernathy]

Correct me if I'm wrong here - I usually am - but Islington North is represented by an "Independent" MP, is it not?

Yes, one Jeremy Bernard Corbyn. Point is, if he chooses to stand for election as such, he will be standing against the official Labour candidate.

[Boiler]

That's what I thought. Thanks for clearing that up.

Trouble is, I can see any opposition making considerable hay out of this: from another forum, let me remind you of the trouble Labour faces...

Corbyn was a nutcase of epic proportions, out of date, and was throwing billions around to buy votes or did you forget that when he was campaigning. The magic money tree, everything for free, buying back the utilities would have cost more than our total uk national debt.
Absolutely clueless, like Brown financially incontinent.

You're not going to win over people like this: that was a response to the Tories being bent and spraying money on bent PPE contracts and the T&T programme.

[Abernathy]

Yes, a fairly typical reaction to Corbyn. That does sound like someone who is just endemically hostile towards Labour. But it’s irrelevant if Corbyn isn’t a Labour candidate, isn’t it ?

[Boiler]

My worry is he - and his Brains Trust brother - are going to cast a long, guilt by association shadow over Labour for a long time to come.

[Abernathy]

My worry is he - and his Brains Trust brother - are going to cast a long, guilt by association shadow over Labour for a long time to come.

Well, perhaps, though Corbyn P isn’t as relevant in Labour Party terms. It’ll be a real step forward if Corbyn, J. is finally out of the party for good, though.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Someone pointed out that Corbyn had a 7.7% swing against him at the General Election, compared with Starmer who had 1.5%. Starmer's is flattered a bit by having the Tories second, whereas Jez has the Lib Dems. But even so, that doesn't say to me that Jez is going to romp home as an independent in 2024.
'