FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
What Labour Party figures said about Jeremy Corbyn

What Labour Party figures said about Jeremy Corbyn

(1:56) Before Theresa May called a snap election, many Labour Party figures were calling Jeremy Corbyh unelectable. Now some have changed their tune.

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Maxwell1956 Maxwell1956 (123 days ago)

I think Jeremy Corbyn played an important part in the U.K. Labour Party's election results but,more important were the Labour Partys domestic and foreign policies - the people of the U.K. support them.

Mr. Blair M. Phillips

Canada

Retired Autoworker

ReplyVote up (101)down (80)
Original comment

I think Jeremy Corbyn played an important part in the U.K. Labour Party's election results but,more important were the Labour Partys domestic and foreign policies - the people of the U.K. support them.

Mr. Blair M. Phillips

Canada

Retired Autoworker

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (124 days ago)

"many Labour Party figures were calling Jeremy Corbyh unelectable. Now some have changed their tune"

It's "Corbyn" not "Corbyh" but that's just a simple typo.

How can you say he's unelectable when he has been elected as a member of parliament since 1983. Since you don't elect your Prime Minister and he was already an MP by election, what election was that description referring to?

ReplyVote up (101)down (100)
Original comment

"many Labour Party figures were calling Jeremy Corbyh unelectable. Now some have changed their tune"

It's "Corbyn" not "Corbyh" but that's just a simple typo.

How can you say he's unelectable when he has been elected as a member of parliament since 1983. Since you don't elect your Prime Minister and he was already an MP by election, what election was that description referring to?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (122 days ago)

"How can you say he's unelectable..." should have a question mark at the end of it because it's a question.

ReplyVote up (101)down (100)
Original comment

"How can you say he's unelectable..." should have a question mark at the end of it because it's a question.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (122 days ago)

What if it was a rhetorical question?

ReplyVote up (101)down (97)
Original comment

What if it was a rhetorical question?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (122 days ago)

Go on then I'll take that as a serious question.

Before this election the labour party was pretty well split: the left supported (and elected as leader) Corbyn; the centrist ("Blairite") faction did not.

The Blairites campaigned within the party against Corbyn because they thought the British public would not want him as Prime Minister, so would not vote labour and a lot of labour MPs would be out of a job.

This is what those Blairites meant when they decribed Corbyn as "unelectable". They did not mean unelectable (by the people of Islington) as MP for his constituency or unelectable (by the labour party members) as leader of the party.

They thought the public as a whole would not vote labour in their own areas/"constituencie s" because they would not want Corbyn as PM.

It turns out they were wrong.

ReplyVote up (93)down (101)
Original comment

Go on then I'll take that as a serious question.

Before this election the labour party was pretty well split: the left supported (and elected as leader) Corbyn; the centrist ("Blairite") faction did not.

The Blairites campaigned within the party against Corbyn because they thought the British public would not want him as Prime Minister, so would not vote labour and a lot of labour MPs would be out of a job.

This is what those Blairites meant when they decribed Corbyn as "unelectable". They did not mean unelectable (by the people of Islington) as MP for his constituency or unelectable (by the labour party members) as leader of the party.

They thought the public as a whole would not vote labour in their own areas/"constituencie s" because they would not want Corbyn as PM.

It turns out they were wrong.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (122 days ago)

But wasn't Jeremy Corbyn already the leader of the Labour Party since September 12, 2015?

ReplyVote up (101)down (88)
Original comment

But wasn't Jeremy Corbyn already the leader of the Labour Party since September 12, 2015?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (122 days ago)

As someone said recently on here, "I wish you would read my comments more closely so I don’t have to repeat myself."

ReplyVote up (100)down (101)
Original comment

As someone said recently on here, "I wish you would read my comments more closely so I don’t have to repeat myself."

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (122 days ago)

I'll admit, your comments are confusing. It turns out he was unelectable because he didn't get the majority and Theresa May is still going to remain as PM. Maybe some seats were lost but at the end of the day, Theresa May is still PM and Jeremy Corbin is still leader of the Labor Party just as it was before the election.

From what I can tell, the only thing that was changed is there were a few seats that changed to the Labor Party but that ultimately didn't chnage anything except potential support for a bill presented in the future.

It is like when we have a Republican President but a Democratic majority in the House and Senate. It makes it hard for the President to pass any bills because the other party does whatever they can to avoid supporting the President so they will vote against the bills.

But all-in-all, it didn't impact Jeremy Corbyn at all.

ReplyVote up (101)down (95)
Original comment

I'll admit, your comments are confusing. It turns out he was unelectable because he didn't get the majority and Theresa May is still going to remain as PM. Maybe some seats were lost but at the end of the day, Theresa May is still PM and Jeremy Corbin is still leader of the Labor Party just as it was before the election.

From what I can tell, the only thing that was changed is there were a few seats that changed to the Labor Party but that ultimately didn't chnage anything except potential support for a bill presented in the future.

It is like when we have a Republican President but a Democratic majority in the House and Senate. It makes it hard for the President to pass any bills because the other party does whatever they can to avoid supporting the President so they will vote against the bills.

But all-in-all, it didn't impact Jeremy Corbyn at all.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (122 days ago)

I suspect a wind-up, but it's Friday and the sun's shining, so...

1) Which part of my comment did you find confusing?

2) The big thing that changed is that the conservatives no longer have a majority in Parliament. I'm simplifying a bit - technically they don't have an overall majority in the Commons (look it up if you need to find out the difference between the House of Lords and the House of Commons). This means they can't pass legislation by themselves and need to form a coalition with another smaller party. There are many consequences from this.

3) This has had a major impact on Corbyn. Yes, labour did not get a majority, but they won so many seats from the conservatives that it shows his policies of recruiting the youth vote and having a socialist agenda are working (and he is "electable"). The labour centrists can no longer justifiably attack him and he has effectively united the party.

4) May's government cannot last long. The splits in the conservative party over Brexit, the strains of working in a coalition with the far right Irish DUP will make passing legislation very hard indeed. There will probably be another election in 6 months to a year and (if he does more of the same) Corbyn and labour will win it.

Here endeth the lesson.

ReplyVote up (101)down (99)
Original comment

I suspect a wind-up, but it's Friday and the sun's shining, so...

1) Which part of my comment did you find confusing?

2) The big thing that changed is that the conservatives no longer have a majority in Parliament. I'm simplifying a bit - technically they don't have an overall majority in the Commons (look it up if you need to find out the difference between the House of Lords and the House of Commons). This means they can't pass legislation by themselves and need to form a coalition with another smaller party. There are many consequences from this.

3) This has had a major impact on Corbyn. Yes, labour did not get a majority, but they won so many seats from the conservatives that it shows his policies of recruiting the youth vote and having a socialist agenda are working (and he is "electable"). The labour centrists can no longer justifiably attack him and he has effectively united the party.

4) May's government cannot last long. The splits in the conservative party over Brexit, the strains of working in a coalition with the far right Irish DUP will make passing legislation very hard indeed. There will probably be another election in 6 months to a year and (if he does more of the same) Corbyn and labour will win it.

Here endeth the lesson.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (122 days ago)

"There will probably be another election in 6 months to a year" How does that work? I'm actually surprised that Theresa May had the power to call a general election whenever she wanted. In the USA, we know exactly when our next elections will be. Our Representatives have a 2 year term, our President has a 4 year term, and our Senators have a 6 year term.

If our President dies, we do not do another election until the term is over because the Vice President automatically becomes President.

If a Senator dies, the governor will appoint a replacement that will be in office until that term would have been over. Only if a Representative dies, then the governor will arrange a special election. But keep in mind, that is not for the whole country but just that small geographic area where that person was representing.

ReplyVote up (94)down (100)
Original comment

"There will probably be another election in 6 months to a year" How does that work? I'm actually surprised that Theresa May had the power to call a general election whenever she wanted. In the USA, we know exactly when our next elections will be. Our Representatives have a 2 year term, our President has a 4 year term, and our Senators have a 6 year term.

If our President dies, we do not do another election until the term is over because the Vice President automatically becomes President.

If a Senator dies, the governor will appoint a replacement that will be in office until that term would have been over. Only if a Representative dies, then the governor will arrange a special election. But keep in mind, that is not for the whole country but just that small geographic area where that person was representing.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (122 days ago)

Until 2011 the maximum time between elections was 5 years - then PM had to call an election, but could choose to do so pretty much at any time before the time was up. They tried to pick a time that suited them and their party. Elections were also called if there was a vote of no confidence passed.

In 2011 the Fixed Term Parliament Act was passed which should have meant (as the name implies) Parliaments lasted 5 years and no less. However, there's a clause that if 2/3 of the House of Commons agrees then an election can be called.

This is what May did. She called an election before she had to and threw away her majority. The conservatives are very angry at her for doing this.

In order for this government to run for the full 5 years now, May has to keep passing legislation and avoiding a vote of no confidence. She is now in a coalition with an extreme right party (DUP); will have someone (Boris Johnson) snapping at her heels to replace her as leader of the conservatives; and has to manage a divided conservative party some of whom think she's too right-wing (and some think she's not right-wing enough). Sooner or later some conservatives will vote against her.

In order to keep passing legislation, she has to keep the DUP and moderate conservatives all on side, hope nobody gets ill or dies and everyone always turns up to vote. This is unlikely, so at some point they'll find it hard to make any progress and there will be a vote of no confidence that she'll likely lose.

ReplyVote up (101)down (93)
Original comment

Until 2011 the maximum time between elections was 5 years - then PM had to call an election, but could choose to do so pretty much at any time before the time was up. They tried to pick a time that suited them and their party. Elections were also called if there was a vote of no confidence passed.

In 2011 the Fixed Term Parliament Act was passed which should have meant (as the name implies) Parliaments lasted 5 years and no less. However, there's a clause that if 2/3 of the House of Commons agrees then an election can be called.

This is what May did. She called an election before she had to and threw away her majority. The conservatives are very angry at her for doing this.

In order for this government to run for the full 5 years now, May has to keep passing legislation and avoiding a vote of no confidence. She is now in a coalition with an extreme right party (DUP); will have someone (Boris Johnson) snapping at her heels to replace her as leader of the conservatives; and has to manage a divided conservative party some of whom think she's too right-wing (and some think she's not right-wing enough). Sooner or later some conservatives will vote against her.

In order to keep passing legislation, she has to keep the DUP and moderate conservatives all on side, hope nobody gets ill or dies and everyone always turns up to vote. This is unlikely, so at some point they'll find it hard to make any progress and there will be a vote of no confidence that she'll likely lose.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (122 days ago)

I get it now. Thanks for the explanation. So with the vote of no confidence (Officially "That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government") then a new general election will occur which could potentially hurt or help the PM. It doesn't mean the PM is out and is replace by someone else, right? That only occurs when the Queen appoints a new PM and the people don't directly vote for PM.

Since it requires 2/3rds vote in the house of commons to call the noconfidence vote, it probably will not pass with the current seats in parliment. She has 317 seats out of 650 so she already has about 49% support. That doesn't count the 10 "Confidence and Supply" seats from the Democratic Unionist Party which she is building an agreement. They would need 67% to not support her which seems unlikely.

ReplyVote up (98)down (100)
Original comment

I get it now. Thanks for the explanation. So with the vote of no confidence (Officially "That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government") then a new general election will occur which could potentially hurt or help the PM. It doesn't mean the PM is out and is replace by someone else, right? That only occurs when the Queen appoints a new PM and the people don't directly vote for PM.

Since it requires 2/3rds vote in the house of commons to call the noconfidence vote, it probably will not pass with the current seats in parliment. She has 317 seats out of 650 so she already has about 49% support. That doesn't count the 10 "Confidence and Supply" seats from the Democratic Unionist Party which she is building an agreement. They would need 67% to not support her which seems unlikely.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (122 days ago)
Latest comment:

absolutely spot-on

ReplyVote up (99)down (101)
Original comment
Latest comment:

absolutely spot-on

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Theresa May's
Theresa May's "extraordinary" conference speech
5 key moments from Jeremy Corbyn's Labour conference speech
5 key moments from Jeremy Corbyn's Labour conference speech
James O'Brien predicts Corbyn will be PM
James O'Brien predicts Corbyn will be PM
Ali G - Interview with Jacob Rees-Mogg (1999)
Ali G - Interview with Jacob Rees-Mogg (1999)
James O'Brien - Boris Johnson is gagging to be sacked
James O'Brien - Boris Johnson is gagging to be sacked