Corbyn confirms
Posted on Wednesday 20 December, 2006
Filed Under Labour Left
Looks like Jeremy Corbyn (pictured) probably is going for the Labour number two job, if this story on Guardian Unlimited is anything to go by. Asked directly if he is considering standing, the Islington North MP answered:
“Nothing’s decided until the new year. But there needs to be an anti-war candidate.
“None of the existing ones are. Even [Peter] Hain and [Jon] Cruddas voted for the war.” …
Mr Corbyn – who is backing Mr McDonnell for the top job – refused to say whether the two men had spoken about a combined ticket, saying merely he had not spoken to the Hayes MP “for a couple of days”.
Unusually mealy-mouthed for Jeremy. But I think we can take that as a ‘yes’. By the way, help a Labour Party newbie here. The vote is by STV, right? So it makes sense to say ‘vote Corbyn, transfer to Cruddas’. Or no?
<<Go back
Comments
91 Responses to “Corbyn confirms”
I spent a few years listening to Jo Moore’s elisions and banalities when I was a member of the Hornsey and Wood Green GMC and I can tell you that the posts here do sound remarkably like her.
Welcome to politics, Voltaires Priest, where people argue back rather than letting people like you criticise with no justification. The discussion you are having with me on this site is nothing like the kind of robust debate that goes on at my local Labour party meetings. Try joining. It’s a lot more productive arguing from the inside.
Welcome to politics, Voltaires Priest, where people argue back
At the risk of stating the blindingly obvious, endless repetitions of “I refuse to argue with you” is not ‘arguing back’.
if I were on the right and wished to share my views I would join the Tories to have my say
(etc)
But the views of anyone who’s not willing to join Organisation X are of no account. The views of non-Zionists on Israel, the views of non-Christians on the church – none of these people should expect their views to be heard. Getting back to Labour, you’d presumably dismiss unheard any comment by people who have in the past been staunch supporters of the organisation, but now believe it has gone badly off course and needs to be reformed. All those people can – nay, should – be ignored.
If this isn’t what you believe, you aren’t expressing yourself very well.
No, I welcome you to the world beyond student politics Jo (which judging by your debating style I’m guessing you left within the past year or two), where factional labels don’t fit, and trot-bashing rhetoric just doesn’t cut the mustard with real people who don’t fit in the boxes.
As it happens, not that it’s particularly important, I’m one of those who do have a vote in the coming leadership election.
You haven’t put a single “argument back” – you’ve simply huffed and moaned that people who “aren’t card carriers” (even if they actually are) don’t have the right to criticise the Great Jon Cruddas for not having done jack shit outside of the Blairite fold until he… err… found the BNP as his main electoral challengers and decided to run for the deputy leadership.
Phil: spot on.
Big sigh. And agin, (and I can keep this “discussion” going for as longas you want to, my friend)Jon Cruddas is not running to become Deputy PM he is running for the INTERNAL Labour party position of Deputy Leader. You have no right to comment – let alone criticise – on whether he is suitable for an internal Labour party position when you are not a member of the Labour party. Why you cannot understand this simple fact bewilders me.
You have no right to comment – let alone criticise – on whether he is suitable for an internal Labour party position when you are not a member of the Labour party.
Jo, this is just nonsense. As I said before, this would imply that non-Christians have no right to comment – let alone criticise – on the actions of the Church of England; that non-Zionists have no right to comment on Olmert’s government; and, in general, that nobody in any political organisation would ever have to listen to anyone who wasn’t already a supporter of that organisation.
I was Labour for most of my adult life; I never got round to joining the party, but there were times when I came close. I haven’t voted Labour while Blair’s led the party, and I now believe that the party is beyond reform. And you’re telling me that you won’t listen to me until I join the party.
It’s your loss.
Yup – what Phil said.
Jo, your position is just nonsense – people have always had, and always will have, the right to comment on and make statements about party leadership elections, whether they have party cards or not. That’s what public political discourse is all about.
The politics of closed cabals and inner circles is part of what has poisoned the Labour Party under Blair, and if you were really so serious about reform then you wouldn’t be putting further such exclusionary arguments for the future. Particularly when they’re actually more censorious than Blair’s – he at least is in favour of people outside the Labour Party having the right to make public comments about its leadership and structures.
[You have no right to comment - let alone criticise - on whether he is suitable for an internal Labour party position when you are not a member of the Labour party. Why you cannot understand this simple fact bewilders me. ]
Jo, I have tried to correct this error three times and you are still making it. You are wrong here (and this is not an argument; I am making a factual correction). The Labour Party leadership elections are not conducted under one member one vote. There is an electoral college. John Cruddas has said, specifically, that he is in favour of the electoral college.
I wouldn’t mind if you wanted to criticise Blair or the government – they are running the country but you have deliberately singled out a particular person, standing in an internal party election. If Jon Cruddas was putting himself forward to run a department of state, I could understand but he’s not and just because he’s saying things that make him sound “left” you feel the need to criticise and ridicule when no one else feels the need to put him in a box because of his views on housing and so on. If Labour is so awful I can’t see why you’re so fascinated by the party’s inner workings. If you truly are Labour you should be figthing to reclaim the party from the Blairites instead if sitting on the sidelines criticising brave people who are putting their money where their mouth is. Otherwise, and I’, sorry if we will eternally disagree, your crticism is worth nothing.
Much of Cruddas’ support comes from people such as myself who aren’t especially interested in how radically Left-wing his rhetoric is or how turned on he gets by thinking about Hugo Chavez or whatever else it is my comrades here look for in a politician. Jo has a point in that those of you who aren’t active Labour Party members really won’t know about life in the Labour grassroots. Cruddas has come up with policies that will change the structure of Labour Party democracy so as to further empower ordinary party members, with the hope that this will increase membership and lead to better Party policy. It’s as simple as that. None of the other candidates have expressed any interesting ideas about how to reinvigorate the Labour Party into an active campaigning force. I don’t care what Cruddas thinks about Brown or McDonnell. As long as he is elected and able to implement his programme I will be satisfied.
Some other criticisms of you lot:
1) Saying Cruddas has switched from being ultra-loyal Blairite to faux-Leftie. Well, he worked closely with Blair up until 2001 and I for one was mostly extremely pleased with the government’s achievements in its first term. I know all the “hard leftists” would have been whingeing about “Nu Labour” so I don’t expect you to share my opinion here. It’s the second term when things started to go increasingly wrong IMO and by then Cruddas was a backbench MP and thus a lot less tainted by close connection to No 10.
2) You may claim to be good ideological socialists, but the fact that Cruddas is the ‘only’ candidate who is willing to openly say that the Labour Government has neglected to address the fundamental issue of class in society seems to have been neglected here. I don’t think talking about class means he has to automatically be a far-Leftie; his policy suggestions can simply differ from those of the Campaign Group. But you are really shooting yourselves in the foot by attacking candidates who are raising the sorts of issues Labour should be talking about and leftie Labourites love to rant about.
3) Do you honestly think Corbyn would make Labour electable?
If you truly are Labour you should be figthing to reclaim the party from the Blairites … Otherwise, and I’m sorry if we will eternally disagree, your crticism is worth nothing.
The ironic thing is that I tend to agree with you and your anonymous friend on the policy issues – I think Cruddas’s commitment to revitalising and re-empowering CLPs is a big point in his favour. (The big question for me is how far changes like these can be carried through, but that’s another debate.)
But “don’t snipe from the sidelines – come and join us!” is a debating tactic, not an argument. As Daniel said a few comments earlier, If you don’t regard the current state of something as acceptable, then criticising it is the only possible form of involvement.
As Daniel also said (on a different thread)
the following policies:
1) the move from public ownership of assets to user fees under the PFI model
2) the last and next five years’ worth of criminal justice legislation
3) the move in foreign policy from mid-Atlanticism to Australian-style “loyal dawg” Atlanticism
4) the introduction of “the choice agenda” in public utilities
are all of them radical changes in the British political system, and the Labour party have been enthusiastically pursuing all of them.
I’ve thought similarly for some time, and I now believe the Labour Party’s reached a point where it can’t be reformed. Dave is more optimistic, and so clearly are you. Good for you. But don’t ever tell the rest of us that we don’t have a stake in the future of the Labour Party; it’s of vital importance to anyone on the Left in Britain.
I think Dave Cameron is a tosser. And I think Cruddas is a tosser. I’m not going to join either of the tossers’ clubs in order to have the “right” to call them tossers. I just will.
If at a future point they cease to be tossers I will glad say that they are ex-tossers. I’m afraid Jo it is not up to you to tell others what they have the right to say or not say.
That’s democracy – tough shit.
The Labour party can be reformed. It needs people to reform it. Jon Cruddas is offering a voice to mainstream members who had their voices taken away. he does not deserve the criticism he is receiving from non-party members.
You’re just shuffling deckchairs on the Titanic.
And I don’t see why you care so much.
Let me get this straight a person whose backing Hilary Benn (“I know him. He was left wing in 1983″ – well, whoppee!) for the Deputy Leader position talks about “shuffling the decks of the Titanic” because others are backing a candidate who actually has some ideas on reforming the party? It is wasn’t so funny it would be traigc.
What I don’t understand is why people would get so militantly angry and defensive about a (to be charitable) ex-Blairite candidate for Labour Deputy leader, that they would be so arrogantly dismissive of anyone else’s right to criticise him? That hardly sounds like pluralist or broad politics to me.
And Jo, it doesn’t matter how many times you repeat the point about “non party members” (many of whom actually are party members, not that it would matter if they weren’t) not having the right to criticise Cruddas. It still won’t be true.
I’ve never claimed to know Hilary Benn, so get your facts right. And actually, I don’t really care what happens to Labour, because as I did say above, the structural changes wrought in British society by the New Labour Party, make the actual administrators of the state irrelevant. My husband’s barber on Boxing Day is the very first person either of us have ever met who has admitted to ‘admiring’ Tony Blair, on the grounds that he showed those ‘Muslims’. He is a Greek, by the way.
[Jon Cruddas is offering a voice to mainstream members who had their voices taken away. he does not deserve the criticism he is receiving from non-party members.]
Guess who disagrees with you on this one, Jo? Jon Cruddas. He says on his website:
“I want to re-engage with those progressives who currently limit their activism to single issue campaigns; trade unionists, community activists, anti poverty campaigners, charities and many more.”
Presumably he would therefore not be too pleased with people who claim to be his supporters but who are actually impeding this important project by claiming that only party members (and now apparently only “mainstream” party members?) are allowed to have opinions about the Labour Party.
He is also being quite active in soliciting the vote of non-Party members like me, so I think you should probably calm down on that front too.
Also, I am not recommending anyone to vote for Hilary Benn, because I don’t waste my time debating how many angels dance on a pin’s head or whether one puts a boiled egg into an eggcup little end down or big end down. It does show though that ‘Ann’ lacks the concentration to follow arguments and therefore her opinion is totally worthless.
Some people may be shuffling decks on the titanic but John McDonnell doesn’t even own a boat!
Great you’re visiting Jon’s website. Maybe now you’ll actually read about what he’s actually proposing instead of simply criticising from a position of ignorance!
Maybe you’ll look at his record and take off the rose tinted specs. And whilst you’re at it, consider accepting the norms of public debate – namely that politicians are legitimately subject to criticism, even such titanic statesmen of our age as Jon Cruddas.
Politicians should indeed be subject to criticism when that criticism is justified. If you’ll recall, the reason we began this “debate” was when you and others began criticising Jon for absolutely no reason at all apart from what was in your own heads – that he’s trying to “be left”, that’s he’s “really a Blairite” and so on, when you knew absolutely nothing about the man. I am really pleased that some of you are now visiting his website to read for yourselves what his supporters know – that he’s a breath of fresh air for our stale party. I know, I spend enough time working for the Labour party out on the streets because I do not want a Liberal Democrat or Tory government EVER again in my lifetime. The reason some of us are sticking with the party is to make sure we do not lose the next election following Blair’s misrule. Jon Cruddas offers us an alternative WITHIN the party tochange direction and put the left back into Labour. It’s interesting that you decided to pick on him instead of the other candidates. That tells me that you’re really not interested in the left (of whatever definition) changing society but would be happy for us all to spend time arguing ourselves while the conservatives slip back into government forever. Well, I’m sorry but where I live people need a Labour government even if you don’t and we not get one by either Blairite candidates who’ve tarnished us or Corbyn/ McDonnell types who want to talk about the 1970s instead of 2006. I will support Jon Cruddas as deputy leader and a fourth term for Labour party government. You may, if you’re happy to, continue to criticise and smear good people who are actually trying to make change happen insted of moaning bitterly from the sidelines.
Maybe now you’ll actually read about what he’s actually proposing instead of simply criticising from a position of ignorance!
Full marks for chutzpah. Daniel has just demonstrated that what Cruddas is actually proposing supports his position and not yours. The possibilities I can see are:
1. You know even less about Cruddas’s policy positions than Daniel.
2. You know about Cruddas’s position with regard to non-members but you don’t agree with it.
3. You know about Cruddas’s position with regard to non-members but you don’t understand it.
4. You haven’t really thought about any of this, since you’ve been too busy trying to win cheap victories by telling other people to shut up and have consequently spent the last few days digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole.
Oh please! Think what you like. If people wish to start visiting Jon’s website they will see for themselves why people are supporting him. Your problem is that you were too quick to criticise before informing yourself.
I have to say Jo has a point. There are many of us who work our guts out for the Labour party and would wlecome a person such as Jon Cruddas as Deputy Leader to reubild. I agree that the many arm chair activists on here have a bit of a cheek to be having a go at candidates like Cruddas when they’re not prepred to get involved themseleves.
Jo, you’ve got a really weird Munchausen-Syndrome-by-proxy version of campaigning style here. Note that this is a thread on the general subject of “vote Corbyn, transfer to Cruddas”, and therefore one on which people were actually quite supportive of him. Surely your time would better be spent on a pro-Alan Johnson site?
[If people wish to start visiting Jon's website they will see for themselves why people are supporting him]
Well no. As everyone on this thread has said, their support for Cruddas as least-worst candidate for the Left of the party is qualified *precisely* because they aren’t sure that he means what he says. Since his website does not actually contain an explanation for his very sudden volte-face on a lot of political issues, those doubts aren’t actually going to be allayed much by his website.
It’s quite arrogant and counterproductive of you to assume that the only reason people might be sceptical about your candidate is ignorance, particularly when you don’t seem to be terribly well informed about him yourself. And (and this was the point of my first intervention on this thread), it is a real hostage to fortune for you to keep piling up the “only Cruddas can save us” rhetoric when you transparently don’t really mean it. When he loses (as he quite likely will, he’s not the front runner by any means), are you then going to assume that the next election is lost and resign your Labour Party membership? Of course not, so it would probably be worth not putting up so many quotes on the internet which might look really silly in a couple of months.
I think your criticism of him is totally unfair and based on old prejudice. As non-members, instead of trying to do him down the least you could is remain neutral but you began by wanting to doubt him. My support for Jon is totally unconditional. I actually believe he can win because he’s the only DL candidate able to bridge the various wings of the Labour party and the response he has been receiving around the country is phenomenal but, of course, as a non-party member you won’t have been at any of these events so know nothing about what’s going on inside the party. Actual party members are much more open to voting for him than you think.
Your problem is that you were too quick to criticise before informing yourself.
I’ve said nothing critical of Cruddas – I’ve actually said “I think Cruddas’s commitment to revitalising and re-empowering CLPs is a big point in his favour”. My criticism has been entirely addressed to your “non-members don’t count and you should all shut up” argument, which strikes me as stupid in its own right, wilfully ignorant and counter-productive. And it’s not what your man Cruddas has been saying himself, as Daniel helpfully pointed out.
Well, we finally agree on something. It’s just a shame you’re not in the party to argue about the candidates. It would serve a far more useful purpose.
Very, very sad. Duckspeak.
“My support for Jon is totally unconditional”
What? Even if he decided to cover himself in suntan lotion and go surfing on top of his campaign bus whilst wearing nothing but a pair of swimming trunks? You’d still support him?? I think i’d have to think long and hard about supporting Jeremy Corbyn’s candicacy if he did that.
Tee hee. Well, that’s definitely a thought I had not considered! Happy New Year. I hope you’ll be a member of the party by the end of it
“My support for Jon is totally unconditional”
That really, really says it all.
Yes, I think it does.
Oh… goodness. You really don’t see what I meant, do you?
Don’t feed the energy creature, Volty.
I do indeed mean it, Volty!