Corbyn now on fewer seats than Gordon Brown

Watch
Trinculo
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#1
Following the epic Corbynite victory of 2017, the fearless leader has now made the Labour Party truly a government-in-waiting with the fantastic loss of 6 seats since the General Election - with no losses to by-elections.

o'Mara, Woodcock, Field, Hopkins and now Ivan Lewis have resigned from Labour, plus Fiona Onasanya possibly facing prison - Corbyn is on 256 seats - 2 fewer than Gordon Brown when he lost the 2010 election.
0
reply
DSilva
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 year ago
#2
(Original post by Trinculo)
Following the epic Corbynite victory of 2017, the fearless leader has now made the Labour Party truly a government-in-waiting with the fantastic loss of 6 seats since the General Election - with no losses to by-elections.

o'Mara, Woodcock, Field, Hopkins and now Ivan Lewis have resigned from Labour, plus Fiona Onasanya possibly facing prison - Corbyn is on 256 seats - 2 fewer than Gordon Brown when he lost the 2010 election.
Three of them were being investigated for harassment when they resigned.

Besides, most of them will continue to vote with Labour.
0
reply
Jges344
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 year ago
#3
Still Corbyn was nothing and now is something you now have to knock his worthiness not his unworthiness shows how the tide has change an epic turn of events it has been that is for sure.
0
reply
Trinculo
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#4
(Original post by DSilva)
Three of them were being investigated for harassment when they resigned.

Besides, most of them will continue to vote with Labour.
So what you're saying is that even the Labour MPs who aren't anti-Semitic Trotskyites - are still bad people - but they still vote Labour so it's all ok.

Cool.
1
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 year ago
#5
(Original post by Trinculo)
Following the epic Corbynite victory of 2017, the fearless leader has now made the Labour Party truly a government-in-waiting with the fantastic loss of 6 seats since the General Election - with no losses to by-elections.

o'Mara, Woodcock, Field, Hopkins and now Ivan Lewis have resigned from Labour, plus Fiona Onasanya possibly facing prison - Corbyn is on 256 seats - 2 fewer than Gordon Brown when he lost the 2010 election.
This is actually more common than you would think. In the 92-97 and 05-10 parliaments there were a number of MP's who either defected or resigned. It tends to be indicative of people who think the party will probably lose at the next election.
0
reply
DSilva
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 year ago
#6
(Original post by Trinculo)
So what you're saying is that even the Labour MPs who aren't anti-Semitic Trotskyites - are still bad people - but they still vote Labour so it's all ok.

Cool.
Who stuck 50p in you?

Can you not have a civilised discussion without resorting to a snarky tone?

As Rakas mentions, this happens frequently, parties have MPs that lose the whip for whatever reason.

There are also a number of Conservative MPs who have lost the whip for similar reasons.
0
reply
Trinculo
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#7
(Original post by DSilva)
Who stuck 50p in you?

Can you not have a civilised discussion without resorting to a snarky tone?

As Rakas mentions, this happens frequently, parties have MPs that lose the whip for whatever reason.

There are also a number of Conservative MPs who have lost the whip for similar reasons.
This is a civilised discussion.

I don't recall many Tory MPs resigning from the party because the leader was an anti-Semite.
0
reply
DSilva
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 year ago
#8
(Original post by Trinculo)
This is a civilised discussion.

I don't recall many Tory MPs resigning from the party because the leader was an anti-Semite.
Oh no, they just oversaw the Windrush scandal in which people who were lawfully here, were deported or denied healthcare.


Woodcock and Ivan Lewis, who claimed to resign because of anti Semitism, were being investigated for harassment.

The Tories also had a couple of MPs who were suspended while complaints about them were being investigated.
Last edited by DSilva; 1 year ago
0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 year ago
#9
(Original post by DSilva)
Oh no, they just oversaw the Windrush scandal in which people who were lawfully here, were deported or denied healthcare.
Well, I'd suggest that it was in 2009 that the decision was made by a Labour government to destroy the only records of some of these people's immigration status that really started that fiasco. Beyond that, it was an administrative ****-up.
Last edited by L i b; 1 year ago
0
reply
DSilva
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 year ago
#10
(Original post by L i b)
Well, I'd suggest that it was in 2009 that the decision was made by a Labour government to destroy the only records of some of these people's immigration status that really started that fiasco. Beyond that, it was an administrative ****-up.
It was largely the 'hostile environment'.
0
reply
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 year ago
#11
“Epic victory”

Now that’s an interesting take on the results.
0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#12
Report 1 year ago
#12
(Original post by DSilva)
It was largely the 'hostile environment'.
Again, originally a Labour creation, but that's not really the problem.

The idea is having a hostile environment towards illegal migrants. What we're talking about is something that happened to legal migrants. Why? Because the Home Office had destroyed the records that demonstrated they were legal migrants.

Alan Johnson was, of course, Home Secretary at the time the decision to destroy the records took place. He says it was an administrative decision rather than a ministerial one that he was not aware of. I believe him.

He did add that "saying there's going to be a hostile environment for people who come here illegally, actually, is not a terrible thing". Which pretty much sums up the general cross-party consensus at the time.
0
reply
ByEeek
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 year ago
#13
I don't know what will happen in the next election. We seem to have wound up in a similar situation to the US with two parties, neither of which is appealing to the electorate in general. Who do you go for? Crooked Corbyn or evil Tory?
0
reply
ByEeek
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#14
Report 1 year ago
#14
(Original post by ltsmith)
why do so many students think the tories are evil?
Could you please tell me how the Tories have made the UK better since 2010 when they got in? When I look around I see food banks, homelessness, poverty, NHS waiting times returning to levels of the 90s when the Tories were last in government, rail strikes just like in the 90s when the Tories were last in, increasing crime and falling standards of education.

The and the cream on the cake - we are going to be shafted by Brexit.
0
reply
ByEeek
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#15
Report 1 year ago
#15
(Original post by ltsmith)
Those three things all existed when labour was in power aswell. NHS waiting times are a problem and something needs to be done about it. I'm not a health professional so I don't have much to say on that matter.

Falling standards of education is quite broad, example?

The possibility of no deal brexit is a problem but do you think corbyn would have gotten us a better deal?
The NHS was in reasonable condition in 2010. Waiting times were within target and most NHS trusts were within budgets. There certainly weren't yearly bed crises.

Education is in total meltdown. Funding has been cut and cut over the last 8 years in line with a growing pupil population so funding per pupil has fallen massively. Many schools are now having to cut teaching staff to make ends meet and pastoral and behaviour support is non-existent in some schools. Add to this the ever increasing drive to raise standards and most teacher simply teach to the mark scheme. It certainly isn't a 1st world education system we like to think.

No, I do not think Corbyn could have done any better. But then Labour weren't stupid enough to say they would hold a referendum on the issue.
0
reply
DSilva
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#16
Report 1 year ago
#16
(Original post by L i b)
Again, originally a Labour creation, but that's not really the problem.

The idea is having a hostile environment towards illegal migrants. What we're talking about is something that happened to legal migrants. Why? Because the Home Office had destroyed the records that demonstrated they were legal migrants.

Alan Johnson was, of course, Home Secretary at the time the decision to destroy the records took place. He says it was an administrative decision rather than a ministerial one that he was not aware of. I believe him.

He did add that "saying there's going to be a hostile environment for people who come here illegally, actually, is not a terrible thing". Which pretty much sums up the general cross-party consensus at the time.
Having a 'hostile environment' to the point where you demand teachers, nurses, doctors, social workers etc become essentially border guards, very much is to blame. The whole 'policy' which they rather amusingly renamed 'a compliant environment' was very much about whipping up an anti-immigrant rhetoric for political gain. Just like the 'go home' vans were before them.

The policy was to make life here as horrible as possible for people, to the point they wanted to go home by themselves. In other words, treating people without basic dignity. Often 'illegal immigrants' are vulnerable individuals and should be treated with a modicum of respect and sympathy, not pushed from pillar to post on purpose in an attempt to force them to leave.

It's absolutely no surprise that people here lawfully were caught up in it.
Last edited by DSilva; 1 year ago
0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#17
Report 1 year ago
#17
(Original post by DSilva)
Having a 'hostile environment' to the point where you demand teachers, nurses, doctors, social workers etc become essentially border guards, very much is to blame. The whole 'policy' which they rather amusingly renamed 'a compliant environment' was very much about whipping up an anti-immigrant rhetoric for political gain. Just like the 'go home' vans were before them.
Yes, the "Go Home" vans were an incredibly clever bit of politics, weren't they?

I apologise for being sarcastic, but that you either can't - or think the wider British public can't - distinguish between legal immigration and illegal immigration does your position a bit of a disservice here. You can look, for example, to social attitudes from immigrants themselves about illegal immigration: in general, they're not terribly in favour of it.

I for one don't have a problem with immigration. I don't particularly want to reduce net migration in the same way Theresa May does: indeed, I struggle to see where the supposed negatives have been. That does not mean I support a free-for-all where rules are ignored with impunity.

The policy was to make life here as horrible as possible for people, to the point they wanted to go home by themselves. In other words, treating people without basic dignity. Often 'illegal immigrants' are vulnerable individuals and should be treated with a modicum of respect and sympathy, not pushed from pillar to post on purpose in an attempt to force them to leave.
Ultimately, however, they are criminals and have chosen to live outside of the law and its protections. They are not refugees or people in need of asylum, they are simply people who broke the rules to come the UK - while many others who want to come here do the right thing, apply through the correct channels and abide by the rules.

Just like it's a bit difficult to sympathise with the problems and indignities suffered by a criminal on the lam, it's a bit difficult to have sympathy with someone who is breaking the rules, continues to break the rules, has a very easy way to stop breaking the rules - and yet doesn't want to. They are the ones who are getting an unfair advantage.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Should there be a new university admissions system that ditches predicted grades?

No, I think predicted grades should still be used to make offers (686)
33.88%
Yes, I like the idea of applying to uni after I received my grades (PQA) (861)
42.52%
Yes, I like the idea of receiving offers only after I receive my grades (PQO) (387)
19.11%
I think there is a better option than the ones suggested (let us know in the thread!) (91)
4.49%

Watched Threads

View All