I think being an independent suits Corbyn. He's always been more of an independent campaigner than a party MP. All the best to him now he's free of the whip.
this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2024
156 points (99.4% liked)
UK Politics
3100 readers
291 users here now
General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
!ukpolitics@lemm.ee appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Interesting thing is that Corbyn actually won mores votes in two general elections than Keir did in this one
And that was with his own party actively trying to lose. Imagine if they just gave him a chance?
It's not about votes. Corbyn was literally booted for being critical of israel.
Corbyn was about the end the israeli reign of Britain and then self proclaimed Zionist Keir staged a coup.
They smeared Jeremy Corbyn for antisemitism and booted him for the Labour party. All the examples given were him being critical of israel. It does not get more blatantly obvious.
Are people really still going with the "smeared for anti-semitism" line?
I don't suspect Corbyn himself is anti-Semitic, but he sure had a lot of people he called "friends" who were. He also sat back and did nothing about abuse to Jewish colleagues in the Labour Party.
The idea that it was all a "smear campaign" is laughable.
The idea that it wasn't a smear campaign is laughable. Especially now that everyone has finally realized criticism of israel does not equate anti semitism.
Keir Starker has coup'd Labour and turned it from a left wing party into another generic neoliberal corporate-sellout party like the Democrats in NA.
Keir Starmer is now trying to delay the ICC arrest warrant for Netanyahu and Gallant.
Before that US envoy suggests UK's Starmer would not respect ICC Israel arrest warrants
Bro Labour has been a generic neoliberal party since the times of Tony Blair, if not earlier.
These cases were only the tip of the iceberg. A further 18 ‘borderline’ cases were found where there was not enough evidence to conclude that the Labour Party was legally responsible for the conduct of the individual.
They found 2 people, and proceeded to mention 18 fictional ones? It's funny that even when Corbyn is perfect somehow the entire party must now be clean as well.
Weaponising anti-semitism, bringing down Corbyn
Other governments were involved too. US secretary of state and former CIA director Mike Pompeo hinted in a private meeting with Israel lobby leaders that the US government could stage its own intervention to stop Corbyn becoming prime minister.
During the 2019 general election campaign, right-wing columnist Simon Heffer claimed on live radio that Corbyn “wants to reopen Auschwitz”—the most notorious Nazi death camp where Jews were systemically murdered on an industrial scale during the Holocaust.
Prominent Israel lobbyists also spat venom at Corbyn. “I think we should sacrifice him for all the trouble he has caused,” said Lionel Kopelowitz, pointing out the verbal similarity of Corbyn’s surname to the Hebrew word for the victim of a sacrifice.
Also do explain why Keir Starmer is fully supporting the israeli Genocide and trying to stop arrest warrants for Genocide. Is that not too far for Labour? Only "antisemitism" is of course. Unless it's not criticism of israel then it's fine for them.
and then the media decided they had to destroy him because they feared him
I'm a big fan of Corbyn, I think he would've been an excellent PM and would have genuinely done a lot for working class people in the UK.
The vilification he endured by the media and political class was completely abhorrent. For me, he's one of a small number of actually good politicians.
Glad to see the people of his constituency still believe in him.
One of the more intriguing results of the night and one of a few places Labour lost.
To someone who still stands for Labour policies. I do hope this doesn't go over Starmer's head.
A lot of areas have labour wins with other lefter leaning candidates aggressively nipping at their heels, despite a monumental imbalance in funding. Come the next election cycle I can see Labour getting a rather rude awakening, but we'll see if they take that seriously or not.
A highly personal vote after representing the constituency for over 4 decades, it's no real surprise that Corbyn retained. It's also extremely unlikely he will vote against Labour on the vast majority of the programme.
Compare that to Chingford, where Shaheen insisted on running as an independent after being deselected (fairly or not doesn't really matter), and having never actually won an election (let alone 40 years worth), and split the vote so much that the architect of food poverty in the UK, Iain Duncan Smith, managed to cling on to his seat.
Her ego got in the way of removing a proven sabateur from Parliament, that is unforgivable.
Alternatively, Starmer's factionalism handed IDS the seat. Despite her strong grassroot support, they still tried to gamble so they wouldn't have another Corbynist in the backbenches.
strong grassroot support
Well, this is clearly not correct, because - unlike Corbyn where this is absolutely correct - she has never been elected, and has now lost twice.
Do I think it's fair what happened? No, I don't.
But goal #1 is to remove the Tories from Parliament. If you are not best placed to do that - and coming third proves she wasn't - you need to put your ego aside and let someone else do it.
Again, is that fair? No, it isn't.
She only started standing as an independent on the 5 June, less than a month from the election, and got only 78 less votes than Labour. Regardless of what you think of her, that's impressive and it's clear if Labour hadn't deselected her, they would've won.
Coming third does not make it clear she would have won.
Corbyn winning does make it clear he would win, because, he did win.
Corbyn is - rightly - more popular than Labour in his constituency. She isn't, and wasn't.
How do you simultaneously hold the positions that she split the vote but wouldn't have won if she was the Labour candidate? If she was the Labour candidate, the vote wouldn't have been split.
Because I'm talking about people voting for her specifically, instead of Labour as a party.
She may well have been elected it she had still been the Labour candidate, but she wasn't. Infact she got less votes than the person who was the Labour candidate.
After she was deselected, she chose to run herself. She chose to prioritise trying to prove Labour wrong instead of getting rid of IDS.
If she had won - like Corbyn - it would prove that she didn't need to wear a Labour rosette to win. But she didn't, so she does need it.
So all she has achieved in that is maintaining one of the worst Tories there is. The result matters, and she enabled that.
This assumes that the people that voted for Shaheen would've voted Labour if she didn't stand. IDS got 35% of the vote, so Labour (who got 25%) would've needed just under half of Shaheen's 25% to win. I'm sure some would have switched to Labour, but 40%? Do you think the kind of voter that would vote for Shaheen directly wouldn't vote Green out of protest of what happened to her?
Every other seat in the country - bar Islington North and Corbyn - shows extensive tactical voting to unseat the Tories, so, yes I do absolutely expect that at least 40% would have held their nose.
Do I think what happened to her was fair? No, I don't. But running out of spite sure is a very individualist approach to a political philosophy defined by the needs of the many outweighing the few.
I don't know if I'm being naïve but I find 24,000 to 16,000 a bit closer than expected!