BREXIT Sitrep

Written By: - Date published: 11:39 am, July 17th, 2016 - 72 comments
Categories: Europe, International, Politics, uk politics - Tags: , ,

The website of the Saker of the Vineyard consistently has some of the best non-mainstream (read: non western propaganda talking points) geopolitical analysis out there.

Their “Brexit SITREP: Looking down from Northern England” piece is no exception.

get corbynIn it, the situation that Jeremy Corbyn, and the English Labour Party finds itself in is beautifully summarised.

Jeremy Corbyn and his traditional left leaning platform is highly electable, while it his Third Way Right Wing Blairite detractors who are the ones who consistently get limited traction in the electorate (and I quote):

  1. Corbyn didn’t just win (his initial Leadership election), he won in all categories, he won in all demographics, and he won so convincingly, all his opponents were written off.
  2. There was a surge in Labour Party membership both before and after his election; more than the entire Tory Party.
  3. This surge was accompanied by a surge in participation at the grass-roots.
  4. Corbyn has forced repeated U-turns of the government, both making a difference on the ground and discrediting the Tories as a Government. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-corbyns-first-100-days-7044930
  5. Labour has won all by-elections with increased majorities, by swings big enough to win a general election.
  6. Labour lost no councils in the local elections, and gained mayoralties of several major cities, including London.
  7. Corbyn has increased his support amongst the PLP from 20-25 to 40-50. (At least 10 of the original 35 that nominated him came out against him afterwards, whilst some abstained or weren’t present to vote in the recent motion of no confidence.)
  8. Has replaced his ‘broad-church’ Shadow Cabinet (i.e. ridden with Blairites) with a much more progressive, young, female, and (presumably) loyal one
  9. He has garnered praise and support from both the SNP and the Greens for his performance as part of the Remain campaign, a campaign where leading Tories on both sides were very publicly guilty of fear-mongering and lying out-right (both of them have very quickly been removed from public view [UPDATE: Boris is back, but the ridicule says it all] ).
  10. Corbyn received the backing of a majority of MSPs (whilst the Blairite leader of the Scottish Branch has lost face due to her opposition to him).
  11. Jeremy is now being reported favourably in at least some of the MSM (the Independent: “looking like a Prime Minister”).
  12. Labour has had another surge in Membership (again more than the entire Tory Party), and these ones are outraged at the treatment Corbyn has received both from the MSM and from the PLP, and by the fact they are being denied their vote by the NEC (Labour’s, National Electoral Council).
  13. A campaign to deselect the Blairite 172 MPs that rebelled against his leadership has now gained the backing of a major union: Unite.
  14. The NEC voted in Corbyn’s favour, ruling he does not need the backing of 50MPs to face the challenge against him.

You can read the full analysis here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

72 comments on “BREXIT Sitrep ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Adrian 1
    17 July 2016 at 11:57 am

    Great summary.
    Boris is a puzzle as to why he’s back but I reckon it’s a cunning plan, in mere weeks he will make such a huge cockup that resignation will be the only option and May will be rid of the only likely contender

  2. Paul 2
    17 July 2016 at 12:38 pm

    Great source for news in the UK
    The Canary

    http://www.thecanary.co/

  3. leftie 3
    17 July 2016 at 2:14 pm

    Yep, Re: Corbyn winning, cleaning house, putting in people better suited to real Labour party values, that’s how I thought it would go.

    • Chris 3.1
      18 July 2016 at 10:42 am

      Now, let’s just hope this will happen in New Zealand, eh?

      • leftie 3.1.1
        18 July 2016 at 12:59 pm

        Why? and it already has. There’s no more leadership challenges, Andrew Little has pulled the NZ Labour Party together, they are working as a team, and some members, who needed to go, are leaving.

        • Chris 3.1.1.1
          18 July 2016 at 1:17 pm

          We are very very lucky to have such a progressive Labour party in New Zealand.

          • Colonial Viper 3.1.1.1.1
            18 July 2016 at 1:19 pm

            All the careerist MPs who knifed Cunliffe in the back, and who think that NZ Super is unaffordable and needs to be cut somehow, are still there.

            • leftie 3.1.1.1.1.1
              18 July 2016 at 1:37 pm

              Goff and Cosgrove are leaving. Would really like it if Shearer took a hiKe. And there is no denying that Andrew Little is showing great leadership, and has managed to pulled NZ Labour together. Did you notice that Andrew Little gave David Cunliffe special mention in his centenary speech? I thought that was a nice touch.

              Remember reading Labour’s website, all Labour’s policies that they ran with in 2014 are under review, and I assume that would include the Super, and that details will not be released until the election.

              • Colonial Viper …
                18 July 2016 at 1:59 pm

                Did you notice that Andrew Little gave David Cunliffe special mention in his centenary speech? I thought that was a nice touch.

                I’ll tell you what was a “nice touch”, and that was Andrew Little demoting Cunliffe, one of the most experienced former Cabinet Ministers in his caucus, down to an unranked backbench position, right next to Clare Curran and other no hopers.

                and I assume that would include the Super, and that details will not be released until the election.

                I don’t care about the Labour POLICY on NZ Super I care that the idiotic orthodox economics BELIEF in the caucus that NZ Super is unaffordable.

                It doesn’t matter what policy detail Labour comes up with, it will come from the fundamental basis that NZ Super needs to be cut.

                • Chris …
                  18 July 2016 at 2:14 pm

                  “I’ll tell you what was a “nice touch”, and that was Andrew Little demoting Cunliffe, one of the most experienced former Cabinet Ministers in his caucus, down to an unranked backbench position, right next to Clare Curran and other no hopers.”

                  Little could’ve taken a leaf out of Key’s book and made Cunliffe a key player. Look at Bill English now – a completely different person to the one we knew in 2002.

                  • leftie …
                    18 July 2016 at 2:31 pm

                    Why Chris? And Bill English is still the incompetent double dipper that he was in 2002. Giving him a title didn’t change anything. hadn’t you noticed the country is in a mess?

                    • Chris …
                      18 July 2016 at 2:34 pm

                      Of course, but that’s exactly what the National government wants.

                    • leftie …
                      18 July 2016 at 2:41 pm

                      Why do what the National government wants Chris?

                    • Chris …
                      18 July 2016 at 2:50 pm

                      I’m not saying that we should. If you don’t understand what I’m saying then that’s too bad. I’m sick to death of comments from people like you. Why are the Labour-can-do-no-wrongers so fucking one-dimensional?

                    • leftie …
                      18 July 2016 at 4:18 pm

                      You are not being coherent Chris, maybe you should try harder to make yourself more clearer. Equally can ask the same of you. Why are Nat supporters like you so one-dimensional? I am not a “Labour-can-do-no-wronger” there is no such thing as a perfect political party or government.

                • leftie …
                  18 July 2016 at 2:26 pm

                  I wondered if it was to give David Cunliffe and the party a break from the hateful vicious msm that was still hounding him. Cunliffe has continued to do good work without the media pulling him apart at every opportunity. No other backbencher got a mention, but Andrew Little acknowledge Cunliffe, and I think that’s important, even if you don’t.

                  Not necessarily. I think the question is more about sustainability for the future of the Super, and yes it does matter, until Labour release details on that, you don’t know.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    18 July 2016 at 2:57 pm

                    OK, Cunliffe was busted down to the unranked back benches for his own good, now I get it.

                    No other backbencher got a mention, but Andrew Little acknowledge Cunliffe, and I think that’s important, even if you don’t.

                    Given that he was in Cunliffe’s electorate I guess he should say something about Cunliffe.

                    • leftie …
                      18 July 2016 at 4:12 pm

                      Andrew Little is not suck up shallow like the Nats Colonial Viper. I think Andrew Little gave David Cunliffe special acknowledgment for the good work he has been doing, just like he did to Phil Twyford.

            • Chris 3.1.1.1.1.2
              18 July 2016 at 1:59 pm

              Yes. Was kidding. http://thestandard.org.nz/brexit-sitrep/#comment-1204997

              Many who see themselves as part of the Left will never accept that Labour is responsible for much of the widespread cases of acute poverty we’re now seeing because of its removal of the special benefit in 2004. That benefit provided the safety net aspect to our overall welfare system that used to be able to address all kinds of hardship in all sorts of situations. The gradual increase in people sleeping in cars, begging on the streets, huge debts in the tens of thousands of dollars for emergency accommodation and so on is largely attributable to the blunt instrument our social welfare system has become following the repeal of the special benefit.

              • Colonial Viper …
                18 July 2016 at 2:16 pm

                Sorry am clearly being slow today

                Labour deliberately refused to return the $20/week Ruth Richardson took away from beneficiaries even though they gave it back to superannuitants.

                That’s how sorry and hypocritical these “lefties” are.

                • leftie …
                  18 July 2016 at 2:37 pm

                  So what’s National done since? Are you still a paid up member of the Labour party Colonial Viper?

                  • Chris …
                    18 July 2016 at 3:13 pm

                    More diversion from a head-in-sand-diehard Labour supporter. As said before, “[m]any who see themselves as part of the Left will never accept that Labour is responsible for much of the widespread cases of acute poverty we’re now seeing because of its removal of the special benefit in 2004.” Just the slightest bit of criticism of Labour brings condemnation for not dishing it out to National, how ever bleedin’ obvious it is that National are a pack of greedy and selfish money-bastards. There, good enough? Do we have to say this every time Labour’s criticised, or will you just resort to your old tricks of accusing whoever it is of being a John Key / National supporter?

                    http://thestandard.org.nz/audrey-young-trashed-in-her-own-comments-section/#comment-1153533

                    • leftie …
                      18 July 2016 at 4:30 pm

                      It’s not a diversion actually, Colonial Viper is calling “lefties” hypocritical, well how hypocritical is he then if he is still a member of the Labour Party he despises? National have been in government for 8 years, it’s old, tired and stale to blame Labour anymore for what the Nats do or don’t do. It doesn’t wash Chris. Stop trying to absolve the National government from any wrong doing or responsibility.

                    • Chris …
                      18 July 2016 at 5:15 pm

                      I think CV’s cleverly saying that you’re hypocritical but then again nobody’s expecting you to understand that.

                    • leftie …
                      18 July 2016 at 5:36 pm

                      Already got that Chris, being clever? that is debatable. How hypocritical is he then if he is still a member of the Labour Party he despises?

                • red-blooded …
                  18 July 2016 at 8:57 pm

                  CV, there’s more than one kind of “lefty”, just as there are many brands of Christianity. It’s fine for you to push your own version, but your constant disparagement of other leftist views and approaches is over the top. The Clark government weren’t hard left, they were incrementalists and I’m pretty sure you would label them (as you seem to label so many)as “Blairite Third Way Neo-Liberals”. They’d probably label themselves as socially progressive, left-leaning, but dealing with the realities of MMP and of knowing that the NZ constituency is basically pretty conservative (only 5 periods of Labour-led government in 100 years).

                  I was angry that the 5th Labour government didn’t reverse the benefit cuts. I still think they should have. I do give them credit for the things they did do to help people on benefits or low wages, though: income-related rents, automatic inflation adjustments for benefits, getting rid of work testing for people on the Sickness Benefit; Family Tax Credits (ensuring guaranteed minimum family incomes), increasing national superannuation for married couples…
                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Labour_Government_of_New_Zealand#Social_policy

                  And BTW, how do you square your anger at the fact that this government returned support to superannuitants with your equally angry denunciations of the current policy position which you see as leaving open the possibility that superannuation may be judged as unaffordable and needing adjustment sometime in the future (and let’s note that this has been ruled out for the first term and was always intended to be a very slow process of lifting of age of eligibility). Oh, and while we’re at it, maybe we should note that this policy was part of the package put before the electorate by David Cunliffe. How come it’s OK, in your eyes, for the revered DC to plan cuts to super, but a betrayal for Andrew Little to take those cuts off the table? Do you support the cuts or don’t you? If you do, then yay for David Cunliffe. If you don’t, then surely Little’s your man?

                  • Chris …
                    19 July 2016 at 12:01 am

                    ” I do give them credit for the things they did do to help people on benefits or low wages, though: income-related rents, automatic inflation adjustments for benefits, getting rid of work testing for people on the Sickness Benefit; Family Tax Credits (ensuring guaranteed minimum family incomes), increasing national superannuation for married couples…”

                    I really think you need to do a bit more research on the things you’re saying here. Inflation adjusted benefits were around way before the Clark government. Labour did not get rid of work-testing for sickness beneficiaries – it actually introduced work-testing for invalids beneficiaries (Social Security Amendment Act 2007). Changes to what was the GMFI resulted in beneficiary families being excluded – all part of continuing Bill Birch’s exclusion of beneficiaries receiving any kind of tax break that started in 1996, and again in 1998 – a phenomenon that Susan St John has written about extensively, i.e. how tax has traditionally been about income and not income status. Labour complained about it at the time and then adopted the same principle by excluding beneficiaries from receiving tax credits because it saw beneficiaries as being “significantly dependent on the state.” Check out CPAG’s website about their legal challenge to all of this. The challenge was unsuccessful but only because the court[s] saw the issue as involving policy rather than law. What Labour did here was still morally wrong. On top of that Labour made things even worse by axing the special benefit – in the same legislation, passed under urgency. People either forget all of this, or never realised it happened because of course nobody could believe that a Labour government could be capable of such nasty behavior, eh? Labour supporters need to know all of this. And this is only some of the nasty things that happened to the poor during the Clark years. People who really care about the poor need to know and understand Labour’s behavior and history in this area.

                    • red-blooded …
                      19 July 2016 at 10:29 am

                      Read the whole comment, Chris. I don’t defend everything the 5th Labour government did; I simply don’t condemn them automatically and put a convenient label on them.

                      BTW, Labour did introduce inflation adjustment for benefits (2000) & they did introduce a sickness benefit that wasn’t work-tested (2001 – from memory it was part of splitting the sickness and invalids benefits). They also raised the minimum wage 5%+ each year (well above the pace of inflation). It’s not everything, but it’s not nothing.

                    • Chris …
                      19 July 2016 at 2:39 pm

                      And my point is that there’s a whole bunch of nasty stuff that Labour did under the radar and which many on the Left are either unaware of or choose to ignore because of the tired old adage “at least they’re not as bad as National”. Well there are things that Labour did that were worse than what National did, for example getting rid of the special benefit. National tried to that in the mid-1990s and failed, then Labour smartly went ahead and successfully got rid of it when in government. This is just one example – there are many many more – and for this reason I do condemn them automatically because on top of this there is absolutely no evidence that they’ve changed their position towards social welfare beneficiaries. In fact, Labour’s confirmed its stance by going so far as voting with the government for legislation that attacks the poor. And Labour did not introduce inflation adjustment for benefits in 2000. CPI adjustment was occurring at least as far back as 1991. And in 2007 Labour introduced a work-test for invalid’s beneficiaries, as well as a stack of other nasty things like replacing the purpose of the Social Security Act from being about looking after the vulnerable with pushing people into employment. This and other horrendous changes Labour made paved the way for National to come along and take things even further. But without Labour’s spade work they wouldn’t have been able to get away anything like they have in the last couple of terms, not to mention Labour’s direct support for much of it.

                      So please don’t tell me to go easy on them because when it comes to looking after the most vulnerable Labour’s position has the effect of colluding with the Nats and giving them free rein because they fail to stand up to them. Show me the evidence Labour has changed on social welfare? There is none, and until I see that I will continue to condemn them.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      19 July 2016 at 3:20 pm

                      Who needs a Labour Govt which only occasionally does shitty things against the poorest and most vulnerable in society, like beneficiaries. I mean, what the fuck exactly is going on in Labour’s little neoliberal heads?

                      Cullen just wanted to make his surplus a wee bit bigger by grabbing back a few dollars here and there from the little people?

                      Clark wanting to appease centrist middle class voters and let them know that Labour was against bludgers too?

                    • leftie …
                      19 July 2016 at 9:00 pm

                      What gave you the idea that Labour got rid of the special benefit in 2004 Chris? Got some links. Because it still existed after 2004 to the present day.

                    • Chris …
                      20 July 2016 at 12:49 am

                      “Read [pointless abuse deleted. TRP], just read.”

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      20 July 2016 at 1:15 am

                      weka explains it thus:

                      “It’s true that life on a benefit is easier during a Labour govt than a Nat one, in that the culture changes, it’s easier to access some entitlements, there is less punishment. But the Clark govt wasn’t good to beneficiaries – it removed the hardship grant of Special Benefit and replaced it with a capped benefit, it excluded beneficiaries from Working from Families and this entrenched the under class just as firmly as anything NACT did. This isn’t to say good things weren’t done too, but Labour still take a punitive approach to benefits albeit a less nasty one than NACT.”

                      Olwyn in comments has also mentioned that Labour 5 ditched the special benefit.

                      No doubt replacing it with a more shite version. Which is what leftie is disingenuously referring to now.

                    • weka …
                      20 July 2016 at 2:11 am

                      What gave you the idea that Labour got rid of the special benefit in 2004 Chris? Got some links. Because it still existed after 2004 to the present day.

                      Not sure if it was 2004 or 2007 that it was removed, but it was removed. You only see it now because there are some people who still have it from back in the day. You can’t apply for it any more though.

                      http://www.cpag.org.nz/assets/Wgtn%20People‘s%20Centre.pdf

                      http://www.caritas.org.nz/sites/default/files/Unravelling%20of%20the%20Welfare%20Safety%20Net%202008.pdf

                    • leftie …
                      20 July 2016 at 2:24 am

                      I wasn’t being disingenuous Colonial Viper, I wanted to know, that’s why I wanted links, which you or Chris haven’t provided. Chris just banged on about the “special benefit” with his usual level of abuse, but devoid of details, and I didn’t know about the hardship grant of the Special Benefit being axed until your posted Weka’s comment, as from what I found out the “special benefit” still exists.

                      “No doubt replacing it with a more shite version.”
                      Does that mean you don’t know either Colonial Viper?

                    • leftie …
                      20 July 2016 at 2:35 am

                      Hello Weka, thank you very much for the links. Appreciated.

                    • leftie …
                      20 July 2016 at 2:38 am

                      You do not need to be so abusive Chris, and read what? you didn’t provide any links to back yourself up.

                    • Chris …
                      20 July 2016 at 11:39 am

                      I don’t cannot fucking believe how you need links to prove that a piece of legislation has been repealed. And it beggars belief that someone who calls themselves “leftie”, for fucks sake, is so out of touch with what their precious fucking Labour party has done and continues to do to the poor. [Pointless abuse deleted. TRP]

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      20 July 2016 at 11:43 am

                      Higher income Thorndon bubble lefties have often never been personally affected by these kinds of changes, Chris.

                      It’s a nice kind of privilege and comfort to have.

                      And it brings a new depth to what being “out of touch” actually means.

                      And how you are somehow the one in the wrong to be upset about it.

                    • Chris …
                      20 July 2016 at 12:10 pm

                      I wouldn’t be so annoyed if it weren’t for that very same attitude that’s had such a damaging affect on things. Part of that attitude is not understanding how tangibly destructive the thinking behind it is. “Provide the links to back up what you say Labour did otherwise Labour didn’t do it.” I cling to the hope that this doesn’t represent where the left in NZ has ended up. It’s certainly where Labour and its die-hard 28% support base has ended up, and therein lies the problem. Labour has so much to answer to.

                    • leftie …
                      20 July 2016 at 1:29 pm

                      I don’t presume to know everything Chris like you do. A lot of people request citations, nothing wrong in backing up what’s been posted and it’s not against the rules. So there is nothing wrong in requesting “links to prove that a piece of legislation has been repealed.” It should have been extremely easy for you to do, and I note, you still haven’t managed to do it.
                      It would have been a hell of a lot quicker and saved time for everyone if you had of just backed yourself up with the links requested, instead of using up so much time and effort abusing me.

                    • leftie …
                      20 July 2016 at 1:47 pm

                      I am not a “Higher income Thorndon bubble” leftie Colonial Viper.

                      “have often never been personally affected by these kinds of changes
                      It’s a nice kind of privilege and comfort to have.”

                      You don’t know me to make that kind of assumption, and that’s rich coming from you, isn’t it?

                      It appears you and Chris went into a tail spin over a simple request to provide more information, no reason to get so upset and abusive over it. Others could read these comments, who may not know the details and get informed, isn’t that what forums like this are about?

                      By your own admission you don’t seem to know everything either, made worse considering you are an ex Lab candidate Colonial Viper, so do you have a right to abuse and accuse others of being out of touch?

                  • leftie …
                    19 July 2016 at 9:07 pm

                    NZ needs a Labour/Greens coalition government Colonial Viper, or would you rather sell out John key and his corrupt Nats remain in power to finish us off? Labour is under a new administration, Andrew Little is steering it in the direction it should be heading, Clark and Cullen are gone.

                  • leftie …
                    19 July 2016 at 9:09 pm

                    Well said Red Blooded on your comments.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    20 July 2016 at 1:30 am

                    red-blooded, DC was 100% wrong to advocate for raising Super. Not only did it cost him the Leadership of the Labour Party, it cost him the election.

                    • leftie …
                      20 July 2016 at 1:57 pm

                      There were a lot of factors at play that cost the left the election, and Cunliffe his leadership. It wasn’t just one thing.

              • leftie …
                18 July 2016 at 2:34 pm

                “increase in people sleeping in cars, begging on the streets, huge debts in the tens of thousands of dollars for emergency accommodation and so on is”

                Directly attributed to the Key National government.

          • leftie 3.1.1.1.2
            18 July 2016 at 1:39 pm

            NZ Labour have put out a great housing plan, wouldnt you agree Chris? very progressive in comparison with the Nats, don’t you think?

  4. Anne 4
    17 July 2016 at 6:43 pm

    An excerpt about the UK Labour Party from a Guardian article about the current UK political scene:

    The party is no longer even capable of providing a space for a respectful political discourse. Some of its MPs and elected officials are receiving death and rape threats, many from those who appear to be supporters of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership.

    Last week, the party took the unprecedented step of suspending constituency party meetings until after the leadership election so as to avoid the risk of intimidation and abuse at local level.

    It is a grim state of affairs when one MP, Luciana Berger, received an email message saying: “You’re going to get it like Jo Cox did”; when party representatives detail the abuse and intimidation that they have been subjected to; when constituency staff have to contend with bricks being thrown through windows at their place of work.

    Much of the abuse is aimed at female MPs and many Labour insiders cite a growing misogyny among some of those activists who are deploying social media to campaign on behalf of Corbyn.

    Alarm bells rang when I read this. There will have been some abusive behaviour on the part of Corbyn supporters (they are understandably very upset at the betrayals by the Blairites), but this scenario reeks of a set-up to me. I don’t put anything past the neo-libs in the UK Labour Party or their supporters out there in voter land.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/17/observer-view-on-labour-party

    • Kevin 4.1
      17 July 2016 at 7:18 pm

      The Guardian is for the Charddonay Socialists, Anne. The Canary, Off-Guardian and others are a much better source of reading for those on the left.

      • Anne 4.1.1
        17 July 2016 at 7:45 pm

        That won’t stop me from reading “mainstream’ news/editorials Kevin because that is still the predominant news source for the majority of people. I want to know what they’re being told and who is telling them.

    • Colonial Viper 4.2
      17 July 2016 at 7:29 pm

      Yes the PLP have decided their best line of attack is to make Corbyn responsible for everyone elses anger that they themselves have caused.

      Notice how the attitude of the PLP is increasingly indistinguishable from Tory MPs.

      • Anne 4.2.1
        17 July 2016 at 7:51 pm

        Notice how the attitude of the PLP is increasingly indistinguishable from Tory MPs.

        I make a prediction. PLP neo libs will form a new party that will negotiate a ‘memorandum of understanding’ with the Tories and, at some point down the track, will be absorbed into a mildly re-vamped Tory party.

        • Colonial Viper 4.2.1.1
          17 July 2016 at 7:53 pm

          some have predicted that there will be a massive court fight over the right to use the Labour name, and also to dispute the ownership of party assets.

          • Kevin 4.2.1.1.1
            17 July 2016 at 11:37 pm

            Good luck to them because they will need it.

            Bit like a sales rep thinking they own the name of the company they work for.

        • Chris 4.2.1.2
          18 July 2016 at 12:58 pm

          It’d be great if that happened and you’d think the change to how the leader is chosen would make them want to fuck off out of there but neo-liberal Labour is too arrogant for that because they know they’d be relegating themselves to a UK equivalent of NZ First – in their minds too peasant-like compared to the pedigree of the “British Labour Party” where they can sit there in Opposition like the lazy bastards they are. Just like a lot of Labour MPs in Zealand who’d be pissed off if they ever won an election.

    • Matthew Whitehead 4.3
      18 July 2016 at 10:55 am

      I have no doubt that Blairites have received abuse and maybe even death threats ostensibly from Corbyn supporters.
      I don’t doubt that female MPs are receiving the majority of that abuse.

      I do doubt that all those “Corbyn supporters” actually were. I would not be surprised to find blairites or even tories among those shouting abuse and making threats.
      I do doubt that it was in any way necessary to shut down the constituency branch meetings. The correct thing to do to minimise abuse is to make sure that people meet and tell each other that death threats and abuse are never appropriate, but protest is.

      Overall, I don’t doubt that if Corbyn is deposed due to the NEC rulings about who is eligible to vote, that Labour will have a split on their hands. It’s possible they’ll have one on their hands even if Corbyn wins, as the Blairites might want their own centrist party at that point.

      • Colonial Viper 4.3.1
        18 July 2016 at 1:24 pm

        The ordinary Labour membership have completely forfeited the confidence of the Labour MPs.

        That’s how the PLP views the world.

        • Matthew Whitehead 4.3.1.1
          18 July 2016 at 8:09 pm

          haha yeah, the PLP seems to think it owns the Labour Party- much like the NZ caucus did, too.

          The difference is that Corbyn appears to have better on-the-ground support than Cunliffe did, and is willing to fight for the soul of his party. Good show IMO, as a split is ultimately not a loss if the party is currently lousy with radical centrists.

    • leftie 4.4
      18 July 2016 at 1:41 pm

      Anne, yep, that’s what it smells like alright, dirty smearmongering, Nat style.

      • Anne 4.4.1
        18 July 2016 at 3:13 pm

        From my link @ 4

        … when constituency staff have to contend with bricks being thrown through windows at their place of work.

        It transpires ONE brick was thrown through Angela Eagleson’ Constituency office window. One brick is one too many, but the impression from the article is that there were multiple bricks flying through Constituency office windows up and down the country. 🙄

        Edit: Mind you, one brick is enough to put the idea into the heads of other individuals including Blairite supporters knowing the Corbynites will get the blame.

        • swordfish 4.4.1.1
          18 July 2016 at 10:28 pm

          From my comment on another thread …

          … http://thestandard.org.nz/shinbone-star-bloody-hell/#comment-1205259

          Seems to be a two-pronged campaign to encourage women Party members to desert Corbyn. First, multiple opinion-pieces in the MSM emphasising “how embarrassing it is” that the Tories have now had 2 women leaders and Labour none (with the implicit message: Vote Eagle) … and, second, to whip up hysteria around the notion that Corbynistas are a bunch of violent dude-bro misogynists (when, in fact, Momentum volunteers are disproportionately women).

          Clearly, the PLP plotters see women as the key to toppling Corbyn.
          Despite the cooling of membership attitudes towards the current leader in the wake of the EU Referendum, Women members of the Party remain consistently more supportive of Corbyn than male members.

          YouGov Poll of Labour Party Members (May and June 2016)

          ……………………………………Men ……….Women …….Diff
          Corbyn doing well or badly as Leader of the Labour Party ?
          May 2016
          WELL ………………………….68%…………..77%……………+9
          BADLY ………………………..31%…………..22%……………- 9

          June 2016
          WELL …………………………..48%…………..55%……………+7
          BADLY …………………………51%…………..43%…………..- 8

          ……………………………………Men ……….Women …….Diff
          Should Corbyn continue to lead the Labour Party ?
          May 2016
          SHOULD ……………………….80%…………..81%……………+ 1
          SHOULD NOT ………………..17%…………..11%……………- 6

          June 2016
          SHOULD ……………………….47%…………..56%……………+ 9
          SHOULD NOT ………………..48%…………..40%……………- 8

          ……………………………………Men ……….Women …….Diff
          Do you think the shadow cabinet
          members who resigned this week to try
          and force Jeremy Corbyn to step down
          as leader were right or wrong to do so ?
          June 2016
          WRONG ………………………..55%…………..66%……………+ 11
          RIGHT …………………………..42%…………..29%……………- 13

          ……………………………………Men ……….Women …….Diff
          If there were another Labour leadership
          election, how likely, if at all, is it that
          you would vote for Jeremy Corbyn ?
          May 2016
          LIKELY ………………………..61%…………..67%……………+ 6
          UNLIKELY …………………..36%…………..30%……………- 6

          June 2016
          LIKELY ………………………..48%…………..55%……………+ 7
          UNLIKELY ……………………51%…………..43%……………- 8

          ……………………………………Men ……….Women …….Diff
          Imagine there was a leadership election
          and these were the candidates, who
          would you vote for ?
          June 2016
          CORBYN ………………………..47%…………….54%……………+ 7
          EAGLE ……………………………43%…………….36%……………- 7

          • Colonial Viper 4.4.1.1.1
            18 July 2016 at 10:31 pm

            Ironic for the Blairites to use gender politics as a weapon to try and dislodge the left wing leadership of the Labour Party.

            Nice to see that Labour women aren’t that easily fooled.