United Kingdom
Related: About this forumLabour leadership candidate Owen Smith opens the contest with a disgraceful smear against Corbyn
http://www.thecanary.co/2016/07/20/labour-leadership-candidate-owen-smith-opens-contest-disgraceful-smear-corbyn/Angela Eagle has dropped out of the Labour leadership campaign, leaving Owen Smith as the only candidate to challenge Jeremy Corbyn.
Unfortunately, Smith has chosen to begin the one-on-one contest with a disgraceful smear, suggesting Corbyn has “encouraged” antisemitism, racism and misogyny within the Labour party.
The MP for Pontypridd opened his attack with the following:
We have had a massive problem recently with misogyny and intolerance in the party, anti-Semitism, racism and the awful way in which women in the Labour movement have been treated. It’s been appalling to witness this, heart-breaking.
But a spokesman for Corbyn denounced the accusations, stating:
Jeremy has consistently condemned all violence or abuse and called repeatedly for a kinder, gentler politics.
He was the first leader of a political party to launch an inquiry into anti-Semitism and other forms of racism in their own party.
Most significant is the conclusion from the inquiry. Flying in the face of the entire establishment media coverage back in May, this is the verdict:
The Labour Party is not overrun by anti-Semitism.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
T_i_B
(14,736 posts)The Corbyn campaign so far has done nowt other than sling mud at anyone not deemed "ideologically pure" enough. All the positivity from Corbyn's campaign last year had gone and all his campaign has to offer is People's Front Of Judea style sectarianism.
My biggest gripe about Labour when Blair was in charge was the reliance on the "vote for us or it's the Tories" argument. Now we have the "vote for us or it's the red Tories" argument. Again, it's not backed up with positive policy but it exceeds the old Blairite tripe in it's stupidity as it focuses obsessively on staunch lefties and effectively tells everyone else to fuck off.
And yes, you will see Corbynite trolls on Farcebook & Tw@tter descend into outright bigotry, although what is more notable IMHO is the promises from Corbin supporters of an Erdogan style purge if Corbyn does stay on.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Last edited Thu Jul 21, 2016, 02:39 AM - Edit history (1)
They've been treated as if they are the enemies of the Labour Party, as if they are alien TO the party and as if the fact that they represent the overwhelming majority of the people who are actually going to do the hard work of trying to elect a Labour government in 2020 counts for nothing.
How much deference can you expect from people who've been treated like that?
His opponents never accepted that he won the leadership fair and square, never treated him with the respect he was entitled to as leader, have briefed against him in the press, and have treated his supporters' organization, Momentum, as if it has no right to even be in the party.
If they didn't want him as leader, it should have been enough for the anti-Corbynites to call for a leadership challenge(in which he would have been on the ballot automatically as party rules unambiguously require). Why couldn't they just have done that, rather than treat him and the hundreds of thousands who have joined to support him as if they were obligated to just go away?
The anti-Corbynites lied about Angela Eagle getting homophobic abuse at a constituency meeting(she wasn't at the meeting, as a constituency party member whose daughter just married her female partner proved), they lied about a brick being thrown through Eagle's constituency office(there was a broken window on the side of the building Eagle had her office in, not the office itself, and the broken glass was OUTSIDE, which would not be the case if a brick had been thrown through the window FROM outside).
After which, not content with demonizing Corbyn and Corbyn's supporters, Owen Smith gaybashed Angela Eagle by implying that he was "normal" and she wasn't, simply because he had an opposite-sex spouse and children.
After which, Angela Eagle felt compelled to withdraw from the contest.
Why can't Corbyn's opponents be decent about this...at least with each other?
Why do they insist Labour is NOTHING but the Labour MPs?
And how, if Corbyn is deposed as leader as a result of a particularly ugly campaign, do Owen Smith's supporters think they will be able to unify the party and create anything like the level of massive enthusiasm needed to defeat Theresa May and the Conservatives in 2020.
Who do they think will do the work of getting Labour candidates elected if all the idealists and activists are alienated, anathemized, and expelled?
T_i_B
(14,736 posts)But then you really are quite the creepy cultist.
Corbyn does have a good proportion of support from other far left parties such as the Socialist party. Groups whose loathing for the non Corbyn cultist wing of Labour is rivalled only by their loathing for each other.
He won the leadership fair and square, but bollocksed it up by being a weak, paranoid and incompetent leader. Momentum should be an asset to Labour, but it appears to be nothing more than a Jeremy Corbyn fan club that does little to engage with the rest of the party.
The Corbynites have resorted to conspiracy theories and trying to frame the leadership contest on completely false terms. If left wingers were Corbyn's only fault then he would not have lost the vote of no confidence. Gross incompetence is a far greater concern for those of us who unlike you, choose to live in the real world.
And to claim that Corbyn's opponents insist that Labour is nothing but Labour MP's is a blatant, pathetic lie on your part.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Last edited Fri Jul 22, 2016, 06:03 PM - Edit history (1)
I simply look at the facts and come to different conclusions than you do.
Is it impossible for you to accept that?
Corbyn is no saint, he's not perfect, but he's done nothing to deserve the relentless hate campaign the PLP and Portland Communications have waged against him.
And you'd pretty much have to concede that, if he had done what the PLP wanted and simply resigned, then been blocked from the leadership contest, the only people who would have been allowed to stand would have been Blairites(and despite his claims to be a left-winger, Owen Jones proved himself to be a Blairite by abetting the Tory benefits cap and refusing to fight the cuts the Tories wanted.
His description of himself as the only "ordinary" person in the race was also homophobic(he was clearly using that term to subtly gaybash Angela Eagle).
What difference does it make if Corbyn has support from people on the "far left"? The far left is a trivially small group. There's no way they were the cause of Corbyn's victory and it's not as if Corbyn wouldn't have won if those parties didn't exist.
As to Momentum, they're doing what they can, given that the PLP has never treated them as if they have a right to be in the party.
Everything would have been different, and massively better, if only Corbyn's opponents had accepted him as leader and got behind him from the start. They all knew nothing good was ever going to come of their relentless campaign to force him out.
T_i_B
(14,736 posts)And you don't have a clue what is actually happening in this country.
You keep trying to lecture US about shit we have to put up with on a daily basis and you don't.
You think politics is just a game. But when politics goes wrong people lose their jobs, people get attacked in the street for the colour of their skin and people die. Politics is not just a game.
Wake up. Corbyn may be a nice idea in theory, but he is a failure as a party leader, sustained in his position by a creepy cult like following, but unable to function outside of that "leadership" cult.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)The facts are that the voters of the UK don't want Labour to be pro-austerity "centrists" with a militaristic foreign policy any more, that the polls show Labour doing worse with Smith as leader than with Corbyn, that the coup plotters had no legitimate right under the party rules to not only try to force Corbyn to resign as leader and then block him from standing in the next leadership contest, that the coup plotters had no reason to not only oppose Corbyn but go to war against Momentum as well, and that there was never any chance of the coup attempt ending with Labour uniting for victory behind a different leader.
The facts point to one conclusion: if Labour does badly in 2020, no one other than the coup plotters themselves will be to blame.
Corbyn's supporters have never been a cult. They are simply normal, rational people standing up to defend a leader they admire against hateful, arrogant coordinated attack.
They support Corbyn because they think he's the best person for the job(no one else seems to have anything to offer, as Smith's embarrassing performance shows). They support him because they believe(correctly) that he's the only person who will restore internal democracy and that Labour can't survive without that. And they support him because he stands up for their right to have a say in Labour's future.
Nothing cultish in any of that. They don't treat the anti-Corbynites with deference because the anti-Corbynites don't deserve it...Corbyn's opponents have no better ideas to offer, are the people who lost the last two elections(Corbyn supporters care just as , much about winning as anti-Corbynites do, it's just that they reject the idea that winning has to mean reducing Labour's program to Thatcherism with a human mask)and haven't even been able to offer a competent, let alone credible or electable alternnative leader.
If the coup plotters hadn't done what they did, Labour would be surging in the polls now(just as Labour would almost certainly have defeated Margaret Thatcher in 1983 or 1984 if Lord Sainsbury hadn't bankrolled the SDP). In fact, Labour was level-pegging with the Tories or running slightly ahead in the polls before the plotters made their arrogant demand for Corbyn to just surrender and let everything his massive numbers of supporters want be eradicated from the party.
The fact that they cared more now(as their political forbears cared more in the Eighties) about keeping Labour under establishment control than about defeating the Tories and stopping things like job losses, benefits cuts, or racist attacks totally discredits the idea that the so-called "moderates" care more about the people than Corbyn and his supporters do.
Hilary Benn, Angela Eagle, and Owen Smith are this year's SDP. And what they are doing now is just as indefensible as what the "Gang of Four" did in the Eighties.
RogueTrooper
(4,665 posts)There has been a noticeable upswing of both Labour Party members voicing anti-semitic views and anti-semites attempting to gain entry in the Labour Party. The see, since the election of Corbyn, the Labour Party as a valid vehicle for their views.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Is obviously a committed opponent of antisemitism as well. He has spoken out against it repeatedly.
The real issue here is that Corbyn also speak out against Islamophobia(which is just as indefensible as antisemitism) and supports self-determination for Palestinians.
Corbyn has never condoned antisemitism at any point in his career, let alone done anything to encourage it.
RogueTrooper
(4,665 posts)That could easily be interpreted as condoning antisemitism.
When it comes to combating anti-semitism his record is extreemly poor. I know of many Jewish members of the Labour Party who are not comfortable with the atmosphere since his election as leader.
Denzil_DC
(7,222 posts)In fact, it's exploitative of a serious issue. Shame on you.
RogueTrooper
(4,665 posts)That he has platformed with anti-semites?
Here you go...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/13/jeremy-corbyn-labour-leadership-foreign-policy-antisemitism
Take the fact that Corbyn once described it as his “honour and pleasure” to host “our friends” from Hamas and Hezbollah in parliament. According to Corbyn, he extended his invitation to the aforementioned groups – and spoke of them glowingly – because all sides need to be involved in the peace process.
So far, so reasonable. Yet negotiation is not on Hamas’s agenda, as Corbyn ought to know. In its charter Hamas states: “Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement… There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through jihad.”
It isn’t a peaceful negotiated solution that Hamas wants; it’s the destruction of the Jews. Here is a direct quote from Hamas’s charter: “The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: ‘The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!’” If this were not bad enough, Corbyn has also:
• Taken tea on the parliamentary terrace with Raed Salah, who he described as “a very honoured citizen” despite that fact that Salah was charged with inciting anti-Jewish racism and violence in January 2008 in Jerusalem and sentenced to eight months in prison. He was found by a British court judge to have used the “blood libel”, the medieval antisemitic canard that Jews use gentile blood for ritual purposes;
Trite, indeed.
Denzil_DC
(7,222 posts)So Corbyn's been making diplomatic overtures to people who're inevitably going to be involved in any peaceful solutions? Terrible. Good job we didn't do that with the IRA, huh?
I've argued this point with you before, so I'm not about to waste my time on you any more than I can help. Take your cheap smears elesewhere, where you might find a more receptive audience.
Here, go argue the point with these folks:
?@J_VoiceUK
@zenbarn2 @bethvaughan15 @DPJHodges
Corbyn is not an antisemite. Kindly stop using Jews' fears for factional gain.
Denzil_DC
(7,222 posts)into discussions here again - in the spirit of sauce for the goose and all that, here's a reaction to his international political stances from 2013:
...
The discussion in question concerned Malala Yousafzai, the Pakistani girl who was shot in the head in an assassination attempt by Taliban gunmen because of her public support for girls’ education. What, asked another person involved in the conversation, should we in the West do to support the rights of schoolgirls in Pakistan? “Militarily defeating the people who shoot them, first off”, was Bloodworth’s response.
...
Yousafzai further challenged Bloodworth’s militarism when she appeared on The Daily Show in the US. Asked by host Jon Stewart how she personally dealt with the death threats, she replied “You must not treat others with cruelty and that much harshly, you must fight others through peace and through dialogue and through education.” I emailed this quote to Bloodworth. His considered response? “I’m not sure Churchill would agree.” The colonial bulldog may not have agreed but the British military leadership seems to be sympathetic. “There is a common perception that the issues in Afghanistan, and indeed elsewhere around the world, can be dealt with by military means”, said Air Chief Marshall Sir Jock Stirrup in 2007. “That’s a false perception.” So, to be clear, Bloodworth, the editor of supposedly the ‘No. 1 left-wing blog’ in the UK, is a far bigger supporter of UK military aggression than the country’s most senior armed forces leader.
Despite the armchair warmongering of commentators like Bloodworth, in recent years peace talks have been going on with the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan. However, continued Western aggression has made a political settlement more, not less, difficult; according to Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, the former UK special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan. “I’m sure some of them are more willing to parlay”, he said in 2011. “But equally, for every dead Pashtun warrior, there will be ten pledged to revenge.”
In short, if followed through, Bloodworth’s militaristic posturing in support of more US and UK military action would mean energising and increasing the number of extremists, prolonging the conflict and therefore bringing about more violence and more deaths. Fortunately, the British public is a little smarter; over the past few years a large majority has supported the withdrawal of UK troops from Afghanistan. Unfortunately for us on the Left, however, it is Bloodworth – seemingly impervious to evidence and elementary logic – who is published in the Independent and sought-after by the BBC.
https://ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/turning-somersaults-whip-challenging-james-bloodworths-warmongering/
And you quoted him unquestioningly approvingly above.
So, adopting your weird, warped, so convenient logic, you have associated yourself with him, and presumably are therefore a Churchill-citing neocon armchair warmonger.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And the only reason he used the term "my friends" for Hamas and Hezbollah was that he was trying to get dialog started with them(there is no way to end the Israel/Palestine dispute without getting everyone involved to sign on to some sort of peace deal-it's not possible to make peace with only the good people).
It worked with the IRA(Corbyn's dialog process there led to the Good Friday Accord, the only thing in NI history that ever reduced the violence there). Corbyn never saw the IRA as "heroes"
another right-wing slur), he simply pointed out that there were legitimate grounds for anger in the minority community in NI and that the way to end the violence was to address the causes of that anger.
In situations where military victory is impossible(NI and ANY Middle East conflict, and in fact most of the world's wars these days)dialog and negotiations are the only things that can work.
LeftishBrit
(41,203 posts)Blair was for a long time very friendly with Gaddafi, who was hardly the greatest lover of Jews in the whole of history.
Politicians share platforms with all manner of dubious types.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)BTW, a lot of us still remember Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam back in the Eighties.
And Hitler and Churchill had a mutual friend in THIS chap:
LeftishBrit
(41,203 posts)and that it is, quite generally speaking, getting worse nowadays, just like other forms of bigotry are.
The worst recent offender was Ken Livingstone, who certainly did not enter the party under Corbyn.
I also think that some of the media is so focused on anti-Semitism by Labourites, that they ignore other parties' records. None of which are stellar. UKIP are truly scary - anti-Semitism may not be quite as common in UKIP as some other forms of racism, but it's pretty damn common. There was a poll a year or so ago which showed that 50% of UKIP supporters would never vote for a Jewish political candidate.
RogueTrooper
(4,665 posts)Anti-semitism is a pervasive prejudice which has existed long before the existince of left and right politics.
I can well believe that many UKIP supporters would have problems voting for Jewish candidates.
Denzil_DC
(7,222 posts)Coupled with his instant reaction to May shamelessly and amateurishly channelling Thatcher at PMQs yesterday, when he opportunistically lambasted Corbyn rather than acting like a member of the Opposition, he's off to a roaring start. And this before it really dawns on him just how high a hill he has to climb.
Perhaps he thinks it'll distract from his own record and policy stances. I can't be bothered raking over those coals at the moment as there'll be plenty of time and volunteers to do that, and very, very rich pickings.
But in the present, this self-proclaimed champion of "women in the Labour movement" is patting Eagle on the head, treating her like a treasured subordinate sidekick after she buckled before his might, patronizingly referring to her as his "deputy" and declaring she'll always be at his side. Bloody hell.
And very well done, self-anointed unity candidate, for cravenly smearing vast numbers of the new Labour membership intake by implying that they're responsible for anti-semitism, racism, misogyny and a variety of other crimes.
What a desperate, pathetic bullshitter. Is this really the best the rebels can cook up?
non sociopath skin
(4,972 posts)... to be got rid of at their convenience, should he win?
The Skin
Denzil_DC
(7,222 posts)the absence of the more obvious high-profile challengers to Corbyn, such as Hilary Benn.
You could be right.
Or they could feel in their bones that unless the private legal challenge excludes him from the ballot, Corbyn'll inevitably win, so there's no point subjecting themselves to detailed scrutiny for nothing and, you know, coming up with a coherent policy platform beyond ditching Corbyn (and by association the inconvenient vast surge in membership since he came on the scene) that people can then hack away at. Cowards, basically, happy to gang upon and try to literally break the man in the committee rooms of Westminster, but scared of facing a fraction of the heat he's taken.
It doesn't sound like Smith's universally loved among the PLP anyway - a reputation for having a "massive ego", etc. etc. The idea he's going to be a meaningful unity candidate is his own fantasy.
T_i_B
(14,736 posts)In fact one of the great challengers that the non Corbyn cultist wing of Labour faces is to move the debate on beyond electability v ideological purity. I know I keep blathering about this but without competence you can't have either. The British left needs to go back to the most basic stuff of all.
Also, challengers who have tried to establish a working relationship with Corbyn will have more credibility than those who flounced out the moment he got elected. In fact you wonder if the creepy Corbyn cultists have asked themselves if Eagle & Smith are so bad, then why did Corbyn appoint them in the first place?
Denzil_DC
(7,222 posts)partly through necessity, partly as a unity gesture, and kept them on a very loose rein, verging on anarchy. He sat there during the Syria debate while Benn did his revolting second summing up for the Tory warmongering faction, and still didn't sack him. He showed more loyalty to the dissenters in his shadow cabinet than they've ever shown him.
I've been seeing rumours on Twitter (which I treat with all the caution that dictates) that some 90 Labour MPs didn't attend ("boycotted"
the leadership hustings, and some have made approaches to existing shadow cabinet members "offering them assistance".
If true, possibly the prospect of having to answer to their CLPs has some bearing on it, or perhaps disappointment/a sense of betrayal that none of the "big hitters" have stuck their heads above the parapet. Or just the dawning of the reality that short of a tragic event, they're stuck with him and will have to try to make the best of it.
There have also been persistent rumours of bullying within the PLP to get people to resign/support the rebels, and any truth behind those will likely come out in time.
As for Smith, his hinterland isn't pretty. I haven't posted any of it here yet, but plenty's being circulated online, and the man's evidently a disastrous candidate, and not just as somebody who's posing as "a radical".
And Eagle's soured her reputation with her demonstrable lies (just heard the myth about her office window being bricked repeated as fact on the Radio 4 news again) to such an extent it'll never recover.
T_i_B
(14,736 posts)Are that Corbyn just wasn't interested in working together with others, be it economic experts like Richard Murphy or his own apointees in the shadow cabinet (the story about Heidi Alexander having to stage a sit in to get Corbyn to sign off on NHS policy is the most obvious example). In that situation it becomes inevitable that he will lose support from those who have made the effort to work constructively with him.
It is possible in politics to win people round. Corbyn could have done that, but instead he's accelerating the decline of the British left.
Denzil_DC
(7,222 posts)It does take two to tango, a few more to barn dance:
Heidi Alexander's lukewarm response to the junior doctors' strike shows she doesn't understand Labour members
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/04/heidi-alexanders-lukewarm-response-junior-doctors-strike-shows-she-doesnt
Labour's Heidi Alexander attacks John McDonnell over NHS policy group
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/30/heidi-alexander-attacks-john-mcdonnell-labour-nhs-policy
I wouldn't be surprised if there's a few tell-all potboilers being scribbled already. Don't know whether history'll be written by the victors in this case.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)the Blairite p.r. firm that orchestrated the entire coup.
They've smeared him relentlessly.
And most of the MPs aren't just against him as a person...they've made this a war against Momentum as well. And a war against the restoration of internal democracy.
The anger you see among Corbyn supporters(none of whom are "cultists", just people standing up for what they believe in)is against a small group of people, distinguishable only by the fact that they managed to win seats in constituencies where anyone standing as a Labour candidate would automatically win, who, in pushing the argument that a leader rejected by a majority of MPs MUST resign, are elevating themselves, as MPs, above everyone else in the party.
If that isn't an argument that the party is nothing but the PLP, what is it?
And if they do get what they want here, how can the PLP possibly think they'd ever be able to unite the party around whoever they imposed as leader? Shouldn't they at least be considering that?
If Corbyn wins the leadership challenge, the only decent thing for the PLP to do is to accept him as leader and let the party heal. Any other choice on their part is the same as making a donation to the Tories.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)The man's brilliant, and he has produced excellent policies on economic issues.
T_i_B
(14,736 posts)I'm not sure John McDonnell is the man to go for if you want "amazing competence" either.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Clearly none of the anti-Corbynites can claim superior competence. The first test of political competence is understanding that you need to be working to get the party you sit as an MP for elected to government.
We've already established that an announced strategy of repeatedly challenging your own party's leader if he wins the leadership challenge you've unnecessarily started in the first place is a demonstration of political incompetence-because it isn't possible to use repeated challenges to force out an existing leader and then, after doing so, to subsequently unite your party behind whoever you impose as leader in that leader's place. There is no possible alternative Labour leader who even has the potential to manage that.
And we've also established that, if Corbyn WERE to have just resigned, no one who succeeded him as leader would have any chance to win the next election if that leader(as is certain to be the case)alienates or expels Momentum. If Momentum goes, there will be no one left behind inside the party to do the work of trying to elect Labour candidates. And there would be no mass influx of new support to replace them, because there is no army of voters who would swing to Labour but ONLY if it committed to being a party of perpetual war and perpetual benefits cuts.
And tell me this...if Corbyn were so singularly unpopular as leader, if it really went without saying that anyone else would be an improvement, why haven't there been any polls released, at any point since Jeremy took over the job, showing this? There should have been polls showing that Eagle or Smith would be ten points ahead of the Tories while Jeremy is ten points behind. Or showing, during the 2015 leadership vote, that Kendall or Cooper or Burnham would have done demonstrably better.
There were none. There are none.
Jeremy Corbyn retains grassroots support as leader because he is an honest, decent, compassionate person who truly cares about the people.
It really IS that simple.
Why is that so hard for you to accept?
BooScout
(10,406 posts)I'm not particularly a fan of Corbyn....he's not shown me he's capable of uniting the party...in fact, it's more divided than ever. But neither am I a fan of the Blairites who have eroded away the base of Labour....the working class with all their Tory-lite policies of the last decade or so.
Is there anyone left in the party that actually can speak up and fight for the values Labour was once known for? The lies and petty and vicious smears coming from both sides is dis-heartening. Owen Smith has just proved himself a total (insert vulgarity here)....but I can't say much better about Corbyn et al. They all suck. I'm going to start looking at the Lib Dems again in desperation.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And that they've proposed no alternate policies or strategies that would win any larger numbers of votes for Labour at the next election.
They've treated Corbyn about 400 times worse than Hillary was ever treated by the US right.
And his supporters have responded with ever more commitment and loyalty in his defense.
BooScout
(10,406 posts)No politician on earth has ever been vilified as much as Hillary has been. Corbyn doesn't even come close.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)n/t.
BooScout
(10,406 posts)You and I both know the level of nasty rhetoric aimed at Clinton has been much higher and much more prevalent than that directed at Corbyn. Why make it a pissing match about something totally unrelated to the subject at hand? 
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Corbyn and Hillary have both received unjust vilification.
BooScout
(10,406 posts)He's quite simply totally incapable of leading Labour. He's a decent enough MP, but as a leader, he's shite. He didn't even attempt to step up to the plate regarding the Remain Campaign. Labour is still losing votes and there is no effective opposition to the Tories because they cannot get their collective shite together and move the party forward. A s a result of this, I am watching the UK sink into the morass.
Why compare or contrast Corbyn to a US politician? The politics of the UK are nothing like those of the US. Having lived in both the US and the UK, I understand this. Do you?
