Labour resignations

[DaveR]

"If I say that I don't hold individual members of the Labour party for Corbyn's mistakes, any more than I hold individual members of the Tory party responsible for Cameron's mistakes, does that mean I'm explicitly equating Corbyn with Cameron? No it doesn't."

Yes, it does, and correctly, in two ways. Firstly it recognises their equivalent status i.e. as leaders of their respective parties, and the nature of those parties. Secondly, it doesn't differentiate between the roles, responsibilities and actions of each of them - it implies that their mistakes (whatever they might be) are qualitatively comparable.

Now apply that reasoning to Corbyn's statement.

[rendelharris]

DaveR Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "If I say that I don't hold individual members of

> the Labour party for Corbyn's mistakes, any more

> than I hold individual members of the Tory party

> responsible for Cameron's mistakes, does that mean

> I'm explicitly equating Corbyn with Cameron? No it

> doesn't."

>

> Yes, it does, and correctly, in two ways. Firstly

> it recognises their equivalent status i.e. as

> leaders of their respective parties, and the

> nature of those parties. Secondly, it doesn't

> differentiate between the roles, responsibilities

> and actions of each of them - it implies that

> their mistakes (whatever they might be) are

> qualitatively comparable.

>

> Now apply that reasoning to Corbyn's statement.

You need to learn the difference between "explicitly states" and "implies." You have chosen to infer that Corbyn is equating ISIS and Israel. He has not explicitly done so. You can argue that that's what he means if you want, but to say that he has explicitly equated them - as you have - is simply untrue.

[rendelharris]

By the way: "A spokesman for Corbyn later clarified that the Labour leader had in his speech been referring to states of an Islamic character, giving the examples of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran or Hamas in Gaza." So in fact explicitly NOT equating Israel and Islamic State.

[DaveR]

"A spokesman for Corbyn later clarified that the Labour leader had in his speech been referring to states of an Islamic character, giving the examples of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran or Hamas in Gaza."

Oh, that's all right then. If that's what he says he meant after he's caused a political firestorm, it must be true.

We're not going to agree on this - suffice to say that equating Israel with murderous fanatical thugs is entirely consistent with Corbyn's stance on Israel for the last 30 years

[rendelharris]

DaveR Wrote:

> Oh, that's all right then. If that's what he says

> he meant after he's caused a political firestorm,

> it must be true.

The alternative being that we take what you say he meant as true, of course. As per previous, if you choose to interpret what he said as equating Israel and ISIS that's up to you, but don't say that he did so explicitly, because he didn't.

[robbin]

Wow - there some real apologists on here!

[rendelharris]

robbin Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Wow - there some real apologists on here!

Some real cheap and childish insults too.

[DulwichFox]

If Corbyn thinks he can win a Leadership Challenge, Why does he not prove it and get the necessary support like everbody else.

If he does not have the support then he is not likely to win in the Challenge..

DulwichFox

[Jeremy]

Because he is very popular with members (idealists), but much less so with the parliamentary party (pragmatists).

[*Bob*]

Hopefully the rules will be interpreted as Corbyn requiring 50 PLP nominations to stand - and Labour will subsequently implode.

Perhaps then - out of the ashes - something less risible will eventually emerge.

[Louisa]

This existential crisis makes the Michael Foot leadership and subsequent SDp/Liberal pact look like a cosy trip to the seaside for the Labour in comparison to its present woes.

If Andrea Eagle is the best they have to offer as a replacement for Corbyn, this it is likely they are looking for the next Kinnock to guide them back into sensible opposition until a better candidate takes them to an election victory many years down the line. I can see them being in the wilderness for at least a decade, if they even remain as one. Very depressing for democracy.

Louisa.

[red devil]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Because he is very popular with members

> (idealists), but much less so with the

> parliamentary party (pragmatists).

Members = Social Media savvy text-a-crowd.

PP = Has anyone got any more Post-It Notes?...

[DuncanW]

Louisa Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> This existential crisis makes the Michael Foot

> leadership and subsequent SDp/Liberal pact look

> like a cosy trip to the seaside for the Labour in

> comparison to its present woes.

Yup!!

I'd like to see Corbyn gone, but if that end is achieved by keeping him off the ballot, the trouble will be far from over.

[Loz]

The NEC has voted for a secret ballot for the Corbyn question. He may be toast...

[jaywalker]

... but he isn't. And the party now is.

[Loz]

Interesting times ahead. I reckon May might just go for an election in 3-6 months time if Labour start to rip themselves apart. Give herself a mandate in her own right.

[????]

I can't see how Labour continue as is - this is an affront to parliamentary democracy by the hard left led by cuddly old principled Jeremy and his ?3 trots (ty very much Ed Miliband, proper Labour members must be thinking)

[Loz]

If Labour had any business sense (yeah, I know...), they'd up the ?3 supporters fee to ?50 or even ?100 and at least make some dosh from the upcoming debacle.

[Loz]

An interesting idea being bandied around... the Leader of the Opposition is defined as "Leader in that House of the party in opposition to Her Majesty's Government having the greatest numerical strength in the House of Commons.".

The Leader in that House. You could interpret that as not (necessarily) being the official party leader.

Can the 178 rebel Labour MPs propose a new Leader in the House, and therefore the leader of the opposition?

[BrandNewGuy]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If Labour had any business sense (yeah, I

> know...), they'd up the ?3 supporters fee to ?50

> or even ?100 and at least make some dosh from the

> upcoming debacle.

And right on cue the Beeb is reporting:

"Only pre-February Labour members get a vote

Posted at 21:03

Only people who joined Labour before February will be able to vote in the leadership contest, BBC chief political correspondent Vicki Young says. It looks like anyone who joined after then will have to pay an extra ?25 to become a "registered supporter" - and will get a two-day window in which to sign up."

Lots of lovely dosh...

[Jenny1]

Well at least we'll now probably get a new political party emerging from the current turmoil. The consensus seems to be that with Corbyn in charge the old Labour party will split by the end of next year. I would hope to see that happen sooner rather than later, so that a new centrist 'Common Ground' party can emerge to challenge the Tories rapidly and effectively.

[Loz]

Quicker, easier and less admin to just join the Lib Dems en masse.

[Jenny1]

Wouldn't it be a joy if they could manage to arrange themselves so neatly?! I do hope so.

[jctg]

I am still incredulous that Dave Spart is the leader of the Labour Party. The man is a Trotskyist. This isn't a "new kind of politics". It's the same hard left it's always been. Why can't people see that?

[miga]

I don't think it's reasonable to expect a party that represents organised labour not to be "hard left", or have some elements of that. Labour's problem isn't Corbyn, it's that organised labour is a marginal force these days, the world has changed around them. The honest thing would be for the "centrists" to break away and create their own social democratic party or whatever.