So now we know...

[Trickytreesreds]

Yearh right, a leader reluctant to quit?

Facing his second General Election defeat, Corbyn announced he would call it a day as leader after being re-elected to his Islington North seat in London.

He said he would not lead the party into another election, but would stay on during a “process of reflection.”

Many Labour figures are calling on Corbyn to resign immediately as the party grapples with what looks set to be an overwhelming defeat. But Corbyn seemed determined to resist the pressure, accusing the media of attacking Labour and contributing to its poor result along with Brexit.

A lifelong socialist, Corbyn, 70, will be remembered for transforming the party from a progressive but center-left political force that won three elections under Tony Blair, to a radical left-wing party that called for major reforms in business and the economy.

While he is popular among the party faithful — membership swelled under him — he is unpopular with many of his colleagues in Parliament, and several high-profile anti-Brexit Labour figures either quit, joined the rival Liberal Democrats or began their own mini-party.

[Andy_Faber]

rA, in answer to your question, Probably not. I did call him a buffoon as recently as yesterday which should indicate my opinion. But you are massively missing my point, that 'your' incessant clamour more than likely has the opposite effect to that intended. thats all

[ramAnag]

rA, in answer to your question, Probably not. I did call him a buffoon as recently as yesterday which should indicate my opinion. But you are massively missing my point, that 'your' incessant clamour more than likely has the opposite effect to that intended. thats all

There comes a time to stop running with the hares and hunting with the hounds, Andy. This is it...just stand up for what is right...and while you’re at it, if you could point out to Tricky that Corbyn is history and completely irrelevant to Johnson’s behaviour it’d be appreciated.

[Trickytreesreds]

There comes a time to stop running with the hares and hunting with the hounds, Andy. This is it...just stand up for what is right...and while you’re at it, if you could point out to Tricky that Corbyn is history and completely irrelevant to Johnson’s behaviour it’d be appreciated.

Arrrrrrrrrrrrh, so history/track records don't count anymore? Brilliant.
So no comment of Starmer/ Sturgeon/Blackford/ Kinnock/Ali/ Jones/ Gething then?

Everything there, from travelling when knowingly being infected, eating chips on a park bench, funerals, birthday parties etc.

You're a one trick pony RA, and incredibly boring in your one sided bias.
You never get upset and out raged, when it's anyone, but a Tory.
The epitomy of todays mouthy minority.


Just for the laugh.
Here's an entitled snowflake crying to your hero, who can't make his mind up what he's backing.
As said. They are all useless and this clown, sees party gate as his only chance of moral high ground in his head.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQaoJyufzso

[swaledale]

the same reasons as all the other times 'you' have called for his head. 1, he's not the resigning type, 2, he has enough allies in his own party to tough it out, 3, he presides over a thumping majority that provides further security to 2, 4, our democracy doesn't bend to a vocal minority, it bends to the periodic will of the people at election time. That's the law of the land. The only chance 'you' had was to pick your moment and prevail on those who could influence 2, and as I've pointed out 'your'constant bloodlust has weakened your chances on that beyond salvation, even my Scottish nationalist brethren are getting fed up with Ian Blackford suiting up and calling for BJ's head every couple of weeks, when there's so much wrong up in Hootland

I do wonder if you don't understand, or just wilfully ignore the fact that this isn't about a vocal minority affecting democracy? You keep repeating this mantra as if its a) actually relevant in this case, b) Its what is happening c) You don't understand how parliament is supposed to work, the ministerial code and bizarrely what generally happens when a Minister or in this case the Prime Minister is shown to have lied or misled parliament, never mind broken the very law he was ultimately responsible for bringing in to force!

So sorry but your view that our democracy doesn't bend to a vocal minority is wrong on many counts - in fact it very often does though that minority often happens to be very rich and influential as well as vocal! - but this isn't about a vocal minority its about what an person called the right honourable should do and if he doesn't what a party, that makes much of being the party of "law and order" should do if he doesn't.

Your 3 reasons as to why Johnson won't resign are correct, though that does say something is very wrong with politics today, we are edging closer and closer to an authoritarian "untouchable" form of government thinly disguised as democratic.

You 4th point is not only totally wrong, but misguided, of course politicians and political parties react to public opinion and of course opposition parties should be vocal in calling out the misdeeds of those in government, thats their bloody job.

I mean Hancock had to resign because he broke the rules, why on earth shouldn't Johnson? He not only broke the rules but lied about to parliament! If he won't resign then the Tory party should recognise the threat to the credibility of government and act to remove him. If they don't and the message is you can do what you want if it keeps us in power will be very dangerous for them.

I do find your "whataboutery" rather funny, so Blackford, Starmer and Davey shouldn't be calling the PM out for his lying, because they have other issues to answer for? Oh please. come on! If that principle was applied nobody would be called out for anything.

Anyway your assertion that repeatedly pointing out when Johnson trips up, is self defeating is not supported by peoples views, with the majority of voters it seems thinking that both Johnson and Sunak should resigned it being the "honourable" thing to do.

History shows that very often its not one thing that a politician does wrong that brings them down, but the small but constant accumulation of events that eventually adds up to public opinion turning against them. So again your view that rA is weakening his case is completely askew with reality.

[swaledale]

There comes a time to stop running with the hares and hunting with the hounds, Andy. This is it...just stand up for what is right...and while you’re at it, if you could point out to Tricky that Corbyn is history and completely irrelevant to Johnson’s behaviour it’d be appreciated.

I fear AF has completely lost the plot on this one - he is right as to why Johnson won't resign, and more than likely right as to why the Tory party won't remove him. But wrong that constantly calling him out will have the opposite effect. If only because its generally the cumulative effect of these things that brings a politician down and it looks as if public opinion is against Johnson anyway and you can be pretty damn sure that if the Tory party does realise its mistake in not removing him threatens them electorally, he will be gone.

The repetition of "vocal minority" is frankly laughable and so wide of the mark!

[ramAnag]

Well, after approaching fifty posts on the subject of ‘what now’ it seems safe to say that we have three, Swale, MA and myself definitely favouring the idea of him going.
The confused chap from Nottingham also seems to agree saying ‘sack the lot of ‘em’ somewhere amongst his irrelevant rants about an ineffective and idealistic Labour leader from some time ago.
Then there’s GP, who won’t agree with me politically on a point of principle, but struggles to offer any defence apart from it being ‘boring’, and the ever patient AF and Ramshank who tend to still favour the ‘wait and see...there are more important things to worry about’ approach...(again).
I’m not sure there are, but on the basis of this ‘debate’ so far I’d suggest the ‘goes’ have it.

[MadAmster]

We could be discussing the theory of black holes and you'd tie it into a Tory funding allocation.

WHAT !!?? You mean black holes weren't caused by a lack of Tory funding?

[Trickytreesreds]

I'm sure that theory is fully believed by many from the deluded civil sector. Any thing that has blue in it in space, is Tory policies.

[Trickytreesreds]

Well, after approaching fifty posts on the subject of ‘what now’ it seems safe to say that we have three, Swale, MA and myself definitely favouring the idea of him going.
The confused chap from Nottingham also seems to agree saying ‘sack the lot of ‘em’ somewhere amongst his irrelevant rants about an ineffective and idealistic Labour leader from some time ago.
Then there’s GP, who won’t agree with me politically on a point of principle, but struggles to offer any defence apart from it being ‘boring’, and the ever patient AF and Ramshank who tend to still favour the ‘wait and see...there are more important things to worry about’ approach...(again).
I’m not sure there are, but on the basis of this ‘debate’ so far I’d suggest the ‘goes’ have it.

Exactly how am I confused?
I have made it perfectly clear my stance on politicians in this country.
I believe they should be sacked. I also believe that all the others who broke the rules should be sacked as well.
Lets take Blackford, who knowingly travelled the length of the country that he was COVID positive,

Corbyn at the time, was still an integral part of Labour and many were calling for his return to leadership,

Your problem RA, is that you are very selective in your rants about right and wrong. Tainted with you despising anything Conservative and ignoring anything else/who is as guilty of a crime.

How many of those people I named been fined?

Get your head out the Guardian once in a while, give it a wobble and look around at everything.

Its funny how my "irrelevent" rant was used in your analysis, because it gave your rabid rant some credence.