Topics about the Labour Party
:sunglasses: 62.6 % ❤ 1.3 % :thumbsup: 5.2 % 😯 1 % :grinning: 21 % 🧥 1.3 % 🙏 2 % 😟 1.6 % :cry: 2.6 % :shit: 1.3 %
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
 
By Winegums
Membership Days Posts
#581442
Abernathy wrote:
Fri Jul 19, 2019 11:23 am
But first comes actually winning an election. The strong sense is that McDonnell, along with much of the shadow cabinet, is infuriated by everything that gets in the way of that. Imagine the despair of losing an election to Boris Johnson and facing another five years of social destruction. Day after day it gets clearer that Corbyn is the chief obstacle: weak, vacillating, glum and scoring the lowest ever poll ratings for an opposition leader as he fails to grasp the severity of Labour’s crisis over antisemitism and Brexit.
Jeremy Corbyn’s weak leadership betrays those Labour would lift from poverty

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... CMP=fb_cif
Polly's written her article again. Trying to drive a wedge between McDonnell and Corbyn is fucking dumb.
 
By bluebellnutter
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#581448
Is that the actual reason the New Statesman removed it? Is that what they actually said?

I notice he's not posted a shred of evidence that that is the case.
 
By Winegums
Membership Days Posts
#581450
bluebellnutter wrote:
Fri Jul 19, 2019 12:10 pm
Is that the actual reason the New Statesman removed it? Is that what they actually said?

I notice he's not posted a shred of evidence that that is the case.
Is there any more likely rationale to hand?
 
By bluebellnutter
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#581454
Winegums wrote:
Fri Jul 19, 2019 12:36 pm
bluebellnutter wrote:
Fri Jul 19, 2019 12:10 pm
Is that the actual reason the New Statesman removed it? Is that what they actually said?

I notice he's not posted a shred of evidence that that is the case.
Is there any more likely rationale to hand?
It wasn't deemed good enough. It was published in error. It fell foul of the legal team in some way.

Prove to me it wasn't any of them.
 
By crabcakes_windermere
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#581455
Man who writes apologetic article for Corbyn saying "he's shit, but give him a go, eh?" makes up Corbyn-favouring reason for removal of said article based on no information, which he admits.

Stuff gets spiked all the time. Stuff gets published in error all the time. Someone probably pressed the upload button by mistake and then pulled it when it was spotted. Author now making most of it for personal publicity.

Simplest explanation is most likely.
 
By Winegums
Membership Days Posts
#581459
Looking forward to the Spectator clearing the record on this

In the meantime, a take so hot I burnt my mouth on it

 
By crabcakes_windermere
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#581464
Winegums wrote:
Fri Jul 19, 2019 2:48 pm
Looking forward to the Spectator clearing the record on this
It's unlikely they'd clarify something that happened in the New Statesman, but sure.

Also: yeah, that's a shit take. So probably just as well the guy has only got 70 followers on twitter.
  • 1
  • 797
  • 798
  • 799
  • 800
  • 801
  • 839
2019 General Election

Thinking more about it, is it so strange that trad[…]

Labour, Generally.

Who'd want to be Labour leader at the moment? I'd […]

The Tories, Generally

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/f[…]

HIGNFY

https://mobile.twitter.com/CharlotteCGill/status[…]