Charlie Elphicke: Former Tory MP jailed for two years after being found guilty of three sexual assaults

[Laughing]

Corbyn was inept. Couldn't control his party, played into the hands of the tory client media and failed at 2 elections.

He is the very definition of politically inept.

 

[MolteniArcore]

I think it is incredibly unfair on Abbott personally.

The problem is Corbyn and his LOTO team were so utterly inept at handling the antisemitism issue that it became a big thing in the public perception and for most uk jews in particular that Starmer had to act, decisively and without mercy for a lot of people in order to change public opinion and restore public confidence in the Labour Party that it was a welcoming place for Jewish people. He did that. Polling on that issue before Starmer took over and since show that.

Abbott was part of that inept team and is tainted. Then she carried on that ineptness with a stupid statement. She invited consequences. They are disproportionate in my opinion, but we are still in a very tricky period. You may have noticed the dreadful matters in Palestine keeping antisemitism prominent in the news. So Labour have a very difficult path to tread still.

I've seen Rayner and Cooper recently stating that they personally want to see her back, but it is a matter of procedure that neither they nor Starmer can interfere in. I'm sure that is technically true, but I'm also sure Starmer and his LOTO could nudge the speed either way, so my conclusion is they are pushing this back because they are concerned about the timing and optics of it. Politically, they are probably right on that. Abbott is a casualty of war.

Abbott and Corbyn are toxic currently. As such neither will be allowed back before the GE.

 

[BlindBoyGrunt]

Why don’t you tell us what you think are the reasons?

You seem to know more about Starmer's thought processes than I do, and you are the one who says that unfortunately it's more than just about them, so tell me, what benefit can there be for treating Jews this way?

 

[equaliser]

I think it is incredibly unfair on Abbott personally.

The problem is Corbyn and his LOTO team were so utterly inept at handling the antisemitism issue that it became a big thing in the public perception and for most uk jews in particular that Starmer had to act, decisively and without mercy for a lot of people in order to change public opinion and restore public confidence in the Labour Party that it was a welcoming place for Jewish people. He did that. Polling on that issue before Starmer took over and since show that.

Abbott was part of that inept team and is tainted. Then she carried on that ineptness with a stupid statement. She invited consequences. They are disproportionate in my opinion, but we are still in a very tricky period. You may have noticed the dreadful matters in Palestine keeping antisemitism prominent in the news. So Labour have a very difficult path to tread still.

I've seen Rayner and Cooper recently stating that they personally want to see her back, but it is a matter of procedure that neither they nor Starmer can interfere in. I'm sure that is technically true, but I'm also sure Starmer and his LOTO could nudge the speed either way, so my conclusion is they are pushing this back because they are concerned about the timing and optics of it. Politically, they are probably right on that. Abbott is a casualty of war.

Good post. 'A difficult path to tread' is an understatement! Starmer has undoubtedly veered too much one way at times - notably over Gaza - but can you blame him? Let's be clear: we were watching the party that Harry Vegas "was once a proud member of" - and several on the board, including myself, still are - being accused, day after day, of being anti-semitic. And some of it was true! This was in no small part down to Corbyn and the people he surrounded himself with, who took legitimate criticism of Israel into territory that frequently crossed the line. The messaging had to change, and had to be seen to change for an extended period.

 

[equaliser]

A far better statement would have been to turn her down on principle. "Get back over there, we have standards."

For once I agree with BBG on politics! Even if his sentiment is not from any genuine wish for Labour to have improved strategy but merely another instance of reflex Starmer-bashing based on his eternal hurt at Corbyn's rejection - because obviously your eternal point is that Labour doesn't have standards - unlike The Marrow King over the Water who is as morally pure as Jesus [but unfortunately unelectable]. Move on BBG! Embrace the sunlit uplands of gradually improved public services and a slow squeeze on wealth!

 

[BlindBoyGrunt]

For once I agree with BBG on politics! Even if his sentiment is not from any genuine wish for Labour to have improved strategy but merely another instance of reflex Starmer-bashing based on his eternal hurt at Corbyn's rejection - because obviously your eternal point is that Labour doesn't have standards - unlike The Marrow King over the Water who is as morally pure as Jesus [but unfortunately unelectable]. Move on BBG! Embrace the sunlit uplands of gradually improved public services and a slow squeeze on wealth!

M questioning is about the the decisions of the current leader, which his supporters seem loath to answer. They do however use this opportunity to dig up the last leader for criticism. And you think I should move on?

 

[1finny]

M questioning is about the the decisions of the current leader, which his supporters seem loath to answer. They do however use this opportunity to dig up the last leader for criticism. And you think I should move on?

BBG
I don’t think that’s fair.
I accept you are generalising but I, for one, have frequently sought to explain his decisions.
In fact I think it is absolutely critical we try and understand his rationale.
Only then can we, IMO, agree or disagree.
Taking a pro/anti stance and just sticking to it is just bigotry.

For example - I don’t like Elphicke in the party but have articulated Starmer’s decision making. - it’s his call.

 

[BlindBoyGrunt]

BBG
I don’t think that’s fair.
I accept you are generalising but I, for one, have frequently sought to explain his decisions.
In fact I think it is absolutely critical we try and understand his rationale.
Only then can we, IMO, agree or disagree.
Taking a pro/anti stance and just sticking to it is just bigotry.

For example - I don’t like Elphicke in the party but have articulated Starmer’s decision making. - it’s his call.

You haven't used this thread as a vehicle to criticise Corbyn, you were only reacting to other posts, so I accept that.
It is fair to level it at others though, and it is a fair defence against Equaliser's post suggesting I should move on.

 

[equaliser]

You haven't used this thread as a vehicle to criticise Corbyn, you were only reacting to other posts, so I accept that.
It is fair to level it at others though, and it is a fair defence against Equaliser's post suggesting I should move on.

Well, I haven't seen you on this board for a while - naturally I can't open every thread, so I may be wrong that you've been taking a break - but it just seems that you always pop up whenever there is an opportunity to stick the knife into Starmer - and what appears to be something of an obsession also appears not unconnected with comments you have made in the past alluding to your anger at Corbyn's treatment by the Labour leadership/ the Left's failure to retain intellectual leadership of the Movement.

But I apologise if I'm over-inferring BBG. The fact is I think you're right that tactically it would have been better to refuse her overtures, to draw a line on this one - but I can also understand why they didn't. I also hope that JC and Diane Abbott are readmitted to the party after we win - we can accommodate a hard-Left caucus because I believe the party as a whole is a soft-Left and we only turned to Corbyn is exasperation at Miliband's failure (which in hindsight had far less to do with rightward drift that we diagnosed at the time). I hope finally, that I won't have to defend Tory-flavoured policies to you after we do win, but rather that I will be able to goad you with 'told-you-so's. I accept that ultimately, you believe in social justice, as I do, and it grieves me that so often leftwingers seem to expend so much more energy fighting 'reformism' than fighting the real enemy. But I wonder if that's just the way things will always be, a structural fact.

 

[Lefty]

you are the one who says that unfortunately it's more than just about them

I say it is about more than just them because the most important thing is getting Labour electable again, getting Labour in to power, making sure this dreadful incarnation of the Conservative Party, with it's Tufton Street influenced and funding by a few extremely right wing very wealthy individuals, stripped of any further direct means to continue to push the ordinary people of this country into oblivion.

You seem to know more about Starmer's thought processes than I do

I don't know his thought processes, it is conjecture. I'm trying to employ a bit of empathy, some logic and some knowledge of politics, Labour in general, a little bit of Starmer to deduce a plausible, reasonable and generous explanation.

A good critical thinking principal that we should try to apply is to start with your most generous interpretation of someones position before going on to explore and test it, don't you think? Engaging in good faith is better than the alternative, but admittedly hard to do, especially on an issue that is emotionally provocative or on which you have developed a bias, surely?

so tell me, what benefit can there be for treating Jews this way?

Does he treat all Jews this way?
Are the people he 'treats this way' only Jews?

If not then their Jewishness would not seem to be his issue with them, but something else, no?

If it is then that would make him an anti-Semite, wouldn't it? You are suggesting the man who has made it a priority to change public perception and the perception within the Jewish communities as a whole, successfully, is an anti-Semite? That's a very weird strategy for an anti-Semite.

 

[BlindBoyGrunt]

Are the people he 'treats this way' only Jews?

No, they're not only Jews but they are Jews who have criticised Israel or support Palestine. JVL is a group of Jewish Labour members who fall into this category and 11 out of the 12 members of its executive committee have been investigated by the party. Jews can have opinions too but Starmer has to keep his donors happy I suppose.

 

[Scrote]

Corbyn was inept. Couldn't control his party, played into the hands of the tory client media and failed at 2 elections.

He is the very definition of politically inept.

As per the last dozen times you've posted this, or similar about "leadership", you need to provide some sort of evidence to show that Corbyn was actually inept - rather than, as is generally accepted, being undermined from within the party.

If I'm a builder charged with building a wall and fail to put bricks on top of each other, bound by mortar, you could call me inept. If it subsequently turns out that I did follow the correct procedure but every time I turned my back to pick up a brick, a co-worker removed all the mortar, the failure is no longer down to me being inept.

Show us where Corbyn got the process wrong. It must be easy as you're so convinced of it, despite the process increasing the labour membership to it's highest in recent times.

Repeatedly stating something doesn't make it true.

This is a really sensitive issue and you are right the cards were definitely against JC.
He could have been better tho.
Saying antisemitism was grossly overstated in the party was not a good move. Neither was saying terrorist organisations, who were openly anti semitic, were his friends’
It took a long time for him to apologise.

Leaders are human - they make mistakes.
For the reasons you say - his were amplified.

I agree that Corbyn could have been better in many areas - I didn't agree with him on everything but the problem, as with Natalie Elphicke, is that Starmer should be being 'better' in far more areas - especially around Gaza and the Israeli actions since Oct 7th.

Telling the truth not being a good move is something that bewilders me. I understand that there can be realpolitik reasons for playing games - again as per Natalie Elphicke - but objective truth should be defended.

I understand the sentiment around the terrorist organisations - but that is the price of long-held political beliefs and a desire for a peaceful world. Starmer has none of the baggage because he's a political blank-slate. That is a big part of the problem with him being the Labour leader - he can say what he wants in a leadership election because there's no history to judge his comments against. As we've seen, he wasn't what he pretended to be.

being accused, day after day, of being anti-semitic. And some of it was true!

But the vast majority wasn't. That doesn't excuse anything that was, but the idea that you have to burn something to the ground because you can't achieve 100% perfection is rank-stupidity.

down to Corbyn and the people he surrounded himself with, who took legitimate criticism of Israel into territory that frequently crossed the line

Examples required. When/who? Bear in mind that the EHRC settled out-of-court with both Ken Livingston and Pam Bromley (at great expense) rather than defend the accusations that were made against them.

I also hope that JC and Diane Abbott are readmitted to the party after we win - we can accommodate a hard-Left caucus because I believe the party as a whole is a soft-Left

You'll need to define 'hard' and 'soft' here. Corbyn was nowhere near being hard-left unless you consider the majority of northern-european politics to be hard-left.

...funding by a few extremely right wing very wealthy individuals

But aren't the same/similar people funding the likes of Wes Streeting to get favourable policies wrt NHS privatisation etc? Once again we're in the "lesser of two evils is still evil" territory.

 

[Laughing]

As per the last dozen times you've posted this, or similar about "leadership", you need to provide some sort of evidence to show that Corbyn was actually inept - rather than, as is generally accepted, being undermined from within the party.

If I'm a builder charged with building a wall and fail to put bricks on top of each other, bound by mortar, you could call me inept. If it subsequently turns out that I did follow the correct procedure but every time I turned my back to pick up a brick, a co-worker removed all the mortar, the failure is no longer down to me being inept.

Show us where Corbyn got the process wrong. It must be easy as you're so convinced of it, despite the process increasing the labour membership to it's highest in recent times.

Repeatedly stating something doesn't make it true.


I agree that Corbyn could have been better in many areas - I didn't agree with him on everything but the problem, as with Natalie Elphicke, is that Starmer should be being 'better' in far more areas - especially around Gaza and the Israeli actions since Oct 7th.

Telling the truth not being a good move is something that bewilders me. I understand that there can be realpolitik reasons for playing games - again as per Natalie Elphicke - but objective truth should be defended.

I understand the sentiment around the terrorist organisations - but that is the price of long-held political beliefs and a desire for a peaceful world. Starmer has none of the baggage because he's a political blank-slate. That is a big part of the problem with him being the Labour leader - he can say what he wants in a leadership election because there's no history to judge his comments against. As we've seen, he wasn't what he pretended to be.


But the vast majority wasn't. That doesn't excuse anything that was, but the idea that you have to burn something to the ground because you can't achieve 100% perfection is rank-stupidity.


Examples required. When/who? Bear in mind that the EHRC settled out-of-court with both Ken Livingston and Pam Bromley (at great expense) rather than defend the accusations that were made against them.


You'll need to define 'hard' and 'soft' here. Corbyn was nowhere near being hard-left unless you consider the majority of northern-european politics to be hard-left.


But aren't the same/similar people funding the likes of Wes Streeting to get favourable policies wrt NHS privatisation etc? Once again we're in the "lesser of two evils is still evil" territory.

Not sure I have to evidence anything. However, if as you say, people from within the party were undermining Corbyn, then as leader of the party that is a failing on his part. He could have withdrawn the whip but was to in effective to do that.

There is one example. A second example would be him losing 2 elections. The second one spectacularly to the halfwit Johnson

Now why don't you show examples of effective leadership?

 

[Scrote]

Now why don't you show examples of effective leadership?

I have done, at least twice in recent weeks, in response to your requests to do so. You didn't reply - presumably because you had no counters to the points made.

He could have withdrawn the whip but was to in effective to do that.

Had Corbyn removed the whip he'd just have been accused of being an autocrat. As I've mentioned previously, if he was so inept, why did it take the combined efforts of the PLP, the media and a bunch of right-wing organisations to bring him down?

A second example would be him losing 2 elections. The second one spectacularly to the halfwit Johnson

The first one came exceedingly close to a hugely-shocking unseating of the government. The failure was a result of those working behind the scenes to undermine the party and any chance of victory.

The second came as a result of the same, plus the almost impossible position for Labour in a single-issue election.

As above - if Corbyn had lost elections with the full support of the Labour party, you'd have a point. As it is, we're left with a huge what-if and a disillusioned left. How that plays out in the coming years is yet to be seen, but the open courting of right-wing votes by shifting away from some long-standing Labour ideals is, in my opinion, only going to end in disappointment. A one-term Labour government, with no stomach to introduce any policies to reverse the privations of the past 15 years or so, isn't going to help a country that desperately needs a reset.

 

[Laughing]

I have done, at least twice in recent weeks, in response to your requests to do so. You didn't reply - presumably because you had no counters to the points made.


Had Corbyn removed the whip he'd just have been accused of being an autocrat. As I've mentioned previously, if he was so inept, why did it take the combined efforts of the PLP, the media and a bunch of right-wing organisations to bring him down?


The first one came exceedingly close to a hugely-shocking unseating of the government. The failure was a result of those working behind the scenes to undermine the party and any chance of victory.

The second came as a result of the same, plus the almost impossible position for Labour in a single-issue election.

As above - if Corbyn had lost elections with the full support of the Labour party, you'd have a point. As it is, we're left with a huge what-if and a disillusioned left. How that plays out in the coming years is yet to be seen, but the open courting of right-wing votes by shifting away from some long-standing Labour ideals is, in my opinion, only going to end in disappointment. A one-term Labour government, with no stomach to introduce any policies to reverse the privations of the past 15 years or so, isn't going to help a country that desperately needs a reset.

Youy do talk an absoloute load of tosh. It's everybodies fault but Corbyn. Gottcha.

 

[LessoftheLip]

Youy do talk an absoloute load of tosh. It's everybodies fault but Corbyn. Gottcha.

Yes the builder and the co-worker analogy is a belter isn't it? A bricklayer has a labourer to mix the mortar for him i.e. tradesman, unskilled. Corbyn was the leader of the party, the boss, the guvnor, head-honcho. But those pesky MPs kept nicking his bricks while his back was turned and he didn't have the gumption to do anything about it. On another level, Corbyn's never had a job in his life. Never had a co-worker, never had a boss, never had workplace interaction. Completely unsuited to leading a political party.

 

[Scrote]

Youy do talk an absoloute load of tosh. It's everybodies fault but Corbyn. Gottcha.

When have I ever said that? In fact I've quite clearly agreed with criticism of Corbyn in the post you originally replied to.

However, you keep pushing the idea that Corbyn's 'failures' happened in isolation and had nothing to do the actions of a bunch of people who could have reasonably been expected to have supported the Labour leadership.

You seem unwilling to accept that any responsibility lies with the people who used their positions to actively prevent a Labour government. You've also proved unwilling to offer any evidence to back up your claims.

 

[BoroMart]

Yes the builder and the co-worker analogy is a belter isn't it? A bricklayer has a labourer to mix the mortar for him i.e. tradesman, unskilled. Corbyn was the leader of the party, the boss, the guvnor, head-honcho. But those pesky MPs kept nicking his bricks while his back was turned and he didn't have the gumption to do anything about it. On another level, Corbyn's never had a job in his life. Never had a co-worker, never had a boss, never had workplace interaction. Completely unsuited to leading a political party.

Yes he’s a professional back bench politician all his life, fine for tooting his moral horn and asking for change, poor at leading change, working with pragmatism to get things done, building a togetherness.

It was all a nice idea and some good policies but he was just too ideological to bring enough people along the journey in his party or in the public

 

[Ziggy]

This recurring theme on the suitably for the member for Islington North to be Party Leader/ Prime Minister is pointless. When he was nominated in the election for leadership the person who did so only did it because he wanted to round out the ticket so there was full representation of all elements within the party.
Nobody at all expected him to win…he wasn’t considered to be a contender. Then he won.
Their whole little manufactured world went into meltdown.
So it was decided across the whole political spectrum, not just the party and not just Labour.
He was never, ever going to be allowed to be PM.
He wasn’t part of the club…he might have collapsed their whole little cosy world.
I did really like the 2017 manifesto.

"Let's build a fairer Britain where no one is held back. A country where everybody is able to get on in life, to have security at work and at home, to be decently paid for the work they do, and to live their lives with the dignity they deserve."
To paraphrase the last line in Chinatown
“Forget it. Jake. It’s politics”

 

[Scrote]

Yes the builder and the co-worker analogy is a belter isn't it? A bricklayer has a labourer to mix the mortar for him i.e. tradesman, unskilled. Corbyn was the leader of the party, the boss, the guvnor, head-honcho. But those pesky MPs kept nicking his bricks while his back was turned and he didn't have the gumption to do anything about it. On another level, Corbyn's never had a job in his life. Never had a co-worker, never had a boss, never had workplace interaction. Completely unsuited to leading a political party.

Where does it matter where the mortar came from? It's an analogy - it's not meant to describe the full working detail of a day in the construction industry.

And you're now saying that being an MP isn't a job? I don't understand where you think you're going with this or what point you're trying to make.

Of course Corbyn has had a job. Of course he's had co-workers. Of course he's had a boss. Of course he's had workplace interactions. Does that mean you do think he was suited to being the leader of a political party? I think you've managed to confuse yourself.