ChatterBank6 mins ago
Margaret Beckett Moron !
Margaret Beckett admitted she had been a moron for supporting Jeremy Corbyn.
http:// www.msn .com/en -gb/new s/uknew s/half- of-the- labour- mps-who -backed -jeremy -corbyn -desert -to-riv al-cand idates/ ar-AAdl Hjv
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by tonyav. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.Now just when you thought it was safe to come out from behind the sofa Anthony Blair sticks his oar in.Labour do not,at the moment, have anyone who appears to have the leadership qualities necessary to mount an effective opposition in parliament let alone win an election.What a pity Alan Johnson didn't stand for leader when people wanted him to.
tonyav - //Margaret Beckett admitted she had been a moron for supporting Jeremy Corbyn. //
That's not strictly what she said - at least not in the news piece I heard on Radio 4.
The interviewer said that the Labour aide who spoke about those who supported Mr Corbyn as being 'morons'.
Mrs Beckett's response was "In that case, I am one ..." which was obviously tongue-in-cheek since Mrs Beckett is clearly not a moron, and equally clearly, does not think of herself as such.
Meaning and context are everything in politics - someone has taken her quote out of context and ignored the obvious intention of her statement.
That's not strictly what she said - at least not in the news piece I heard on Radio 4.
The interviewer said that the Labour aide who spoke about those who supported Mr Corbyn as being 'morons'.
Mrs Beckett's response was "In that case, I am one ..." which was obviously tongue-in-cheek since Mrs Beckett is clearly not a moron, and equally clearly, does not think of herself as such.
Meaning and context are everything in politics - someone has taken her quote out of context and ignored the obvious intention of her statement.
The article in general is extremely ill-informed anyway. It talks about MPs "switching sides", after initially supporting Corbyn, whereas in actual fact what happened was people nominated him in addition to their own preferred candidate. It struck me as daft at the time and still does now.
But the idea wasn't quite as daft as the article makes out: it wasn't to "take on and defeat the hard left". Labour doesn't need to do that. It was actually the opposite: to allow the left of the party a place in the debate, without of course imagining that Mr Corbyn actually stood a chance of winning, but recognising that many in the party did support him.
But if you don;t want someone to win, don't support them. it comes across as patronising.
But the idea wasn't quite as daft as the article makes out: it wasn't to "take on and defeat the hard left". Labour doesn't need to do that. It was actually the opposite: to allow the left of the party a place in the debate, without of course imagining that Mr Corbyn actually stood a chance of winning, but recognising that many in the party did support him.
But if you don;t want someone to win, don't support them. it comes across as patronising.
I didn't see that AOG, but it seems all Mr Corbyn's 'supporters' are now hoist by their own petard.
They seem to have thought that by nominating him, they would be seen to 'widen the debate' by putting a sub-Michael Foot leftie dinosaur-ish figure into the mix. Having done their but for the democratic process, they went on to back the candidate of their choice, which was universally NOT Mr Corbyn!
What they never dreamed of, is that Mr Corbyn would pick up any meaningful support, much less lead the current UGov poll, and while it is highly unlikely that Mr Corbyn will win the vote, his 'supporters' are faced with an extremely reasonable, but highly embarassing question why did you nominate a candidate you don't support?
Queue squirming!!
They seem to have thought that by nominating him, they would be seen to 'widen the debate' by putting a sub-Michael Foot leftie dinosaur-ish figure into the mix. Having done their but for the democratic process, they went on to back the candidate of their choice, which was universally NOT Mr Corbyn!
What they never dreamed of, is that Mr Corbyn would pick up any meaningful support, much less lead the current UGov poll, and while it is highly unlikely that Mr Corbyn will win the vote, his 'supporters' are faced with an extremely reasonable, but highly embarassing question why did you nominate a candidate you don't support?
Queue squirming!!
grumpy01, well Mr Prescott doesn't agree with Mr Blair.
http:// www.msn .com/en -gb/new s/uknew s/labou r-leade rship-p rescott -attack s-blair s-total ly-unac ceptabl e-abuse /ar-AAd mtF5
http://
Labour has fallen apart, it is currently struggling to find its feet and certainly will not do so until a leader is elected. Nothing new here, all parties would go through the same thing in the same situation.
I suspect labour may well not be interested in the next election, hence the shower to choose from. Far better to let the Tories sort out the economy, then when everyone has had enough elect a new leader such as Chukka to lead them to victory.
I suspect labour may well not be interested in the next election, hence the shower to choose from. Far better to let the Tories sort out the economy, then when everyone has had enough elect a new leader such as Chukka to lead them to victory.
Well Nigel from Kent is backing Jeremy Corbyn !.
http:// www.msn .com/en -gb/new s/uknew s/nigel -farage -backs- jeremy- corbyn- to-be-n ext-lab our-lea der/ar- AAdn7I8
http://
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.