You must log in or register to comment.
That’s their doing fair play
I mean, is it? Under his leadership the Labour Party broke the law in relation to racism within the party - that was the finding of the independent Equalities and Human Rights Commission investigation. It found that on Corbyn’s watch, the culture of the Labour Party ‘at best, did not do enough to prevent anti-Semitism and, at worst, could be seen to accept it’. He was the leader, he is accountable. That was his doing.
He then chose to put out a statement rejecting this and dismissing the evidence of racism suffered by Labour members as exaggerated - as a result of which he was suspended. That statement was his doing too.
And now he has chosen to stand against the Labour candidate in an election - this choice was also his doing.
So which part of this is ‘their doing’?
He established the Chakrabarti Inquiry The Forde report concluded that they basically ate themselves over the issue, so to answer your question rather than add to the downvotes yes he was a polarising leader who should have made a lot more of an effort unionising the party, but Labour as a party failed hard during that period a point where they were constantly handed big W’s by the cons. They made sure he knew he wasn’t a Labour leader so it’s not surprising he has no issue running against them as an indie.
reminder that the media only found anti semitism in labour under the definition from israel that any criticism of the government is anti semetic
Reminder that the Equality and Human Rights Commission is not ‘the media’. It’s a non-governmental public body created by a Labour government in 2006 to promote and enforce equality legislation introduced by said Labour government.
as he should he’s represented his constituency well and they still want him. labour will try and parachute someone into the seat and risk losing a solid labour constituency because of it
Labour have actually selected a local councillor, not someone parachuted in.
Good for him. Labour are continuity Tories.
Isn’t it a bit more nuanced than that?
A bit.
Because at the end of it. His constituents have chosen him multiple times. Labour has no right to deny them the chance to do so again.
So if they refuse to offer his direct voters the same options. He likely feels he has a duty to let them choose between him and some Labour parachute accident.
Nothing is nuanced on the internet
I guess we’re bringing that Reddit trait over here too.
Only in the same way that Coke and Pepsi are differnt
As Orwell pointed out way back then, they’re both sides of the neo liberal coin.
If you want Tory vote Tory or Labour, if you want chnage Vote Green.
Nothing chnages if voters don’t
I’d argue that certain welfare reforms under the previous Labour government wouldn’t have been considered under a Conservative one. Equally, a lot policies that affect numerous people would have been very different in the last few years if we had a Labour government.
Are the Greens really much different from your broad perspective?
Neoliberalism didn’t exist yet when Orwell was alive.
I wish he wouldn’t, but can’t really blame him for trying. He might well win, after all.
EDIT: There’s precedent for this, it turns out! Last time an incumbent, independent former Labour MP in Islington North ran for re-election was in the 1983 GE, when some guy called Jeremy Corbyn won easily for Labour. I don’t think there’s much read-through to the current situation because, firstly, the incumbent in 1983, Michael O’Halloran, obviously didn’t have Corbyn’s national recognition and, secondly, O’Halloran not only had defected (not been expelled), but had effectively defected twice: from Labour to the SDP, then from the SDP to ‘Independent Labour’ (in reality, just him) when he wasn’t selected to fight the seat for his new party.
What’s with all the losers trying to worm their way back into politics these days?
