I am more left than right, I am happy being so and I like Jeremy Corbyn.. This doesn't make me stupid or loony!!
I would be the kind of person who prefers to read a lot of social media (peoples personal opinions) rather than the media although I do like to compare the mood with both. I have noticed a number different moods with regards to Labour and the leader debate. There are those that have always hated Corbyn (I know a few people) and then there are those who have always supported him (I know a few of these too). Jeremy Corbyn is the political equivalent to Marmite, there is never a middle ground with him you are either for or against his policies.
First note: We do NOT condone violence, keep it peaceful!
"It is extremely concerning that Angela Eagle has been the victim of a threatening act and that other MPs are receiving abuse and threats. As someone who has also received death threats this week and previously, I am calling on all Labour Party members and supporters to act with calm and treat each other with respect and dignity, even where there is disagreement. I utterly condemn any violence or threats, which undermine the democracy within our party and have no place in our politics."
Both sides have been causing trouble this week, two members of Momentum were threatened by Corbyn haters in a pub they spent time in after campaigning and death threats have been sent to MPs who are against Corbyn. This is NOT acceptable, no matter what side you are on!
Jeremy Corbyn & Expenses
Jeremy Corbyn first got into politics in 1974 when he was elected to Haringey Council, later becoming secretary for the Islington Constituency Labour Party (keeping both roles even after being elected as an MP). He has been returned as a MP for his constituency a total of seven times, including the General Election in 2015, since first gaining the seat in 1983. Jeremy has won awards for his work as an International Human Rights Campaigner. As a backbench MP he was well known for his activism and rebelliousness, often voting against the Labour Whip if he did not agree with something he was being asked to vote for/against.
"The great changes in our society, from votes for women, to anti-discrimination laws and support for the disabled have all come from ordinary people demanding that their MP do what is right for them. Social housing should be available to all; the NHS and welfare state must be kept to protect us in times of need; and getting rid of dangerous and wasteful nuclear weapons and ending the wars that have blighted the globe in recent years are a must, and I devote much time to these aims."
In the 80s he was well known for the work that he done for the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four who were, eventually, found to have been wrongfully convicted of a series of bombings carried out in England in the mid-70s by the PIRA. Corbyn was also a well known campaigner against Apartheid in South Africa, serving on the National Executive of the Anti-Apartheid Movement even getting arrested in 1984 whilst demonstrating outside South Africa House.
The expenses of MPs become a huge scandal in 2009 but Corbyn's expenses are in the lower half of all ranked MPs.
Total claim: £129,597.98 (201st smallest out of 653 MPs in the year)
Break Down: Office Rental and Staffing Costs - £129,068.98
Personal Expenses: Travel expenses for a trip to Ankara to visit Turkish Parliament - £529
Total Claim: £139,372.80
Break Down: Office Rental and Staffing Costs - £138,839
Personal Expenses: Travel expenses: Train ticket, travel to Vienna to appear as a court witness and travel costs - £533.80
Total Claim: £141,184.39
Breakdown: Office Rental and Staffing Costs - £140,364.90
Personal Expenses: Office Moving Costs and Storage - £819.49
Total Claim: £159,281.35 (259th lowest of all MPs).
Breakdown: Office Rental and Staffing Costs - £159,106.86
Personal Expenses: Hotel Accommodation for MP purpose - £174.39
In an interview with The Islington Gazette he said: "I am a parsimonious MP. I think we should claim what we need to run our offices and pay our staff but be careful because it's obviously public money. In a year, rent for the [constituency] office [on] Durham Road, Finsbury Park is about £12,000 to £14,000." Corbyn rents his constituency office from the Ethical Property Company.
Taking a look at a couple of other MP's expenses to see the difference for the most recent year available on IPSA
Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey) - 2014-2015
Total Claim: £169,278.08
Breakdown: Office Rental and Staffing Costs - £159,272.05
Personal Expenses: Under accommodation - Includes claims for Electricity, Council Tax, Water, Heating Fuel and Telephone £5,031.23
Under Travel - Including petrol, hotels to London etc - £4,974.80
Hilary Benn (Labour, Leeds Central) - 2014-2015
Total Claim: £166,464.23
Breakdown: Office Rental and Staffing Costs - £152,788.22
Personal Expenses: Under accommodation - Includes claims for Electricity, Council Tax, Home Contents Insurance, Service Charges and Telephone £4,392.46
Under Travel - Including costs like 90p to travel - £6,304.55
Extra Expenses included Office Partitions and Storage - £2,979
Neil Parish (Conservative, Tiverton & Honiton) - 2014-2015
Total Claim: £166,950.64
Breakdown: Office Rental and Staffing Costs - £139,349.17
Personal Expenses: Under accommodation - His rent prices £20,549.17
Under Travel - Including costs like 90p to travel - £7,051.50
Alan Duncan (Conservative, Rutland & Melton) - 2014-2015
Total Claim: £162,412.30
Breakdown: Office Rental and Staffing Costs - £155,621.38
Personal Expenses: Under accommodation - His rent prices £6,661.92
Under Travel - only rail travel - £129
Caroline Lucas (Greens, Brighton) - 2014-2015
Total Claim: £170,593.07
Breakdown: Office Rental and Staffing Costs - £161,818.87
Personal Expenses: Under accommodation - Hotel for meetings etc £2,815
Under Travel - only rail travel - £5,959.20
Vincent Cable (Lib Dem, Twickenham) - 2014-2015
Total Claim: £146,182.35
Breakdown: Office Rental and Staffing Costs - £146,182.35
Personal Expenses: None
I want to give a special mention to the next person, the lowest expenditure I have seen today
Dennis Skinner (Labour, Bolsover) - 2014-2015
Total Claim: £67,927.77
Breakdown: Office Rental and Staffing Costs - £57,813.83
Personal Expenses: Travel £5,722.25 Accommodation includes Service Charges £4,391.69
On the BBC's Newsnight in 1984, Corbyn was asked to discuss the House of Commons dress code, during which broadcast Conservative MP Terry Dicks asserted that so-called Labour scruffs (such as Corbyn, who at this time was known for wearing open-necked shirts to the Commons) should be banned from addressing the House unless they maintained higher standards. Corbyn responded, saying that: "It's not a fashion parade, it's not a gentleman's club, it's not a bankers' institute, it's a place where the people are represented." Not much has changed when it comes to the Conservatives bickering at him over his clothes, David Cameron was the most recent one to have a pop at him in the House of Commons a few months ago. Personally, I would rather see someone a bit more "normal" than someone spending over £1000 on an Italian suit especially when that someone suggests that "We are all in it together".
The day before the General Election, May 6th 2015, the Labour membership numbers was standing at 201,293 by January 10th 2016 this had risen to 388,407. Since the Labour MP coup (if you can call it that) stating a lack of confidence in Jeremy Corbyn the membership seems to have sky rocketed with another 60,000.. no scratch that 100,000 joining and numbers hitting an approximate of half a million, which is the highest number of members since the fifties. No matter why these people joined, they have signed up as part of the Labour Party.
The difference between Right and Left Wing
Taken from I don't get politics:
Left wing beliefs are usually progressive in nature, they look to the future, aim to support those who cannot support themselves, are idealist and believe in equality. People who are left wing believe in taxation to redistribute opportunity and wealth - things like a national health service, and job seeker’s allowance are fundamentally left wing ideas. They believe in equality over the freedom to fail.
In the UK the main left wing parties are the Labour Party and the Green Party. They believe in making laws that protect women, ethnic minorities, and gay people against discrimination. They believe that we should tax rich people more to support people less well off, and they believe we should regulate big businesses so they serve people’s interests. They believe that a good welfare system means people are healthier, more able to work, and will put more back into the economy. They also typically believe country-wide tax-funded action on climate change is necessary.
Right wing beliefs value tradition, they are about equity, survival of the fittest, and they believe in economic freedom. They typically believe that business shouldn’t be regulated, and that we should all look after ourselves. Right wing people tend believe they shouldn’t have to pay for someone else’s education or health service. They believe in freedom to succeed over equality.
In the UK the main right wing parties are the Conservative (or Tory) Party, and UKIP (who focus on the UK not being a part of the European Union). They believe that if you have more money, you should get to keep it, and buy better education and health services for yourself. They believe that businesses should be less regulated, and that the more money they earn, they’ll bring more benefits to the country. In 2008 two thirds of Tory MPs didn’t think climate change was a priority, but their leadership says it’s important. They are more likely to focus on energy security (oil and gas are set to run out very soon, and they won’t want to rely on other countries).
There are an awful lot of poorly considered political arguments out there, but one of the absolute worst is the claim that there is no difference between left-wing and right-wing.
In this article I'm going to explain the difference, take a look at how such confused claims that there is no difference come about, and then take a quick look at why the simplistic left vs right paradigm (although meaningful) is still far too simplistic.
The difference between left and right
The main difference between left-wing and right-wing politics is about economic organisation.
Left-wing politics focuses on the public ownership and operation of essential infrastructure and services such as the health service, public transport networks, schools, the police & army, the land registry, mail service, energy infrastructure, social housing. The further towards the far-left you go, the more things are classified as public property and the fewer things are allowed to remain under private ownership.
Right-wing politics focuses on the private (and often unaccountable) ownership and operation of essential infrastructure and services such as the health service, public transport networks, schools, the police & army, the roads, the land registry, the mail service, energy infrastructure, social housing (while the public still pays the cost of building/maintaining these things through their taxes). The further towards the far-right you go, the more things are classified as private property and the fewer things are allowed to remain under public ownership.
Aside from the core economic difference between left and right there are some other differences too. One of the important common distinctions is that left-wing politics often has a focus on directly combating poverty and inequality, while right-wing politics tends to work on the (ridiculous) assumption that deregulated markets and increased private ownership will tend to reduce poverty and inequality.
Another difference is that left-wing politics has more often been associated with liberal social values than right-wing politics. This traditional association between left-wing political groups and liberal social values sprung up because of the obvious difficulty in reconciling the left-wing desire for greater equality with the practices of overt social discrimination (against women, ethnic minorities, homosexuals, disabled people ...) that existed in the past.
It's important to remember that although the political left has been in retreat for the last four decades or so, liberal social values have been in the ascendancy. In modern Britain we have anti-discrimination laws and gay equality, yet only a few decades ago homosexuality was considered a "crime" worthy of punishment by chemical castration and racial discrimination was all too common (see the openly racist Tory election leaflet from Smethwick in 1964).
The left is more often associated with social liberalism and the right with social conservatism, however liberal social values are clearly not a necessary condition of left-wing politics, and social conservatism is not a necessary condition of right-wing politics. It's perfectly possible to be an economically left-wing bigot, just as it's possible to be economically right-wing and oppose social discrimination.
How the confusion arises
The increasingly common confusion between left-wing and right-wing politics has arisen as a result of a number of factors. In this section I'll detail a few of the important ones.
One of the main reasons that people struggle to grasp the difference between left-wing and right-wing politics is the way that modern political discourse is framed by the mainstream media.
The UK has the most right-wing biased press in Europe. This means that political coverage is more often than not skewed with an extreme right-wing bias. It's almost impossible to find anything resembling accurate definitions of left-wing and right-wing politics in the mainstream media. The situation has got so bad that social democrats like Jeremy Corbyn (who believe in finding a balance between state socialism and regulated capitalism) are routinely derided as being "dangerous", "radical" "extremist" from the far-left, while the radically right-wing "privatise absolutely everything we can get away with" Conservatives are treated as if their hard-right policies are centre-ground, moderate, common sense and fundamentally beyond question (this refusal to question is particularly noticeable with the widespread acceptance of the macro-economically illiterate policy of austerity in the mainstream media).
As result of the extreme bias of the right-wing press we've found ourselves in the extraordinary position where the traditional social democratic centre ground is routinely derided as the extreme-left, while the ideologically driven austerity and mass privatisation policies of the most fanatically right-wing UK government in living memory are treated as they are essentially beyond question by the vast majority of journalists.
"Third way" politics
One of the other main causes of confusion between left-wing and right-wing politics is the way that so many nominally left-wing political parties abandoned left-wing politics in order to embrace right-wing economic policies like privatisation, financial market deregulation, globalisation and free-trade. Bill Clinton and Tony Blair were two of the first to convert traditional left-wing political parties to pushers of right-wing economics, but they were far from the only ones. PASOK in Greece and PSOE in Spain are two other high profile examples of supposedly socialist political parties that were guilty of embracing hard-right economic policies.
This rightward shift in mainstream politics contributed to the confusion between left and right because swathes of the mainstream media continued to refer to parties like New Labour as "the left" and "socialists" even though they were blatantly pushing right-wing economic policies like the privatisation of public property, PFI, financial deregulation and de-industrialisation. No wonder people began to get confused when the supposedly "left-wing" political party was busy pushing exactly the same kind of right-wing policies as their conservative predecessors.
The immigration debate
The tabloid framing of the immigration debate is another contributor to the confusion between left-wing and right-wing politics. The tabloid press in the UK love to blame "the left" for mass immigration even though the open borders policy in the EU is clearly a right-wing free market economic policy.
The tendency to blame "the left" for mass immigration is inaccurate for a number of reasons. It's a right-wing free market policy that favours employers over employees; the New Labour government that oversaw a big increase in net migration was an economically right-wing one; the Tory government that followed them has overseen the biggest spikes in net migration in recorded history and it's the most right-wing government in living memory.
When the tabloid press are intent on blaming the consequences of right-wing economic policies imposed by right-wing governments on "the left" (which hasn't been in power since 1979), it's no wonder so many people get confused.
It's more complicated than "left vs right"
The difference between left-wing and right-wing politics is undeniable, but it's simply not sufficient to rely on this one-dimensional distinction alone. I've already addressed the fact that social liberalism and social conservatism are distinct from left and right wing economic policies, then there's the distinction between libertarian and authoritarian style governance to add into the mix too.
Instead of viewing the political spectrum as a simplistic one dimensional line between left-wing and right-wing, it's possible to add other parameters to create more detailed political spectra like the political compass.
The fact that the majority of modern mainstream political parties have occupied the upper right quadrant of the political compass makes it clear where a lot of the confusion is coming from. If the distinction between right and left in mainstream politics has been measured by the difference between a radically right-wing authoritarian party (the Tories) and a slightly less right-wing authoritarian political party (New Labour), then it's no wonder people begun to believe that left and right are essentially the same.
The problem isn't that there's no difference between left and right, it's that mainstream politics has become increasingly confined within the right-wing authoritarian quadrant of the political compass, while other areas of political discourse like left-libertarianism (my kind of politics) and right-libertarianism have been left almost completely unrepresented within the political establishment.
If you believe that pretty much everything should be public property (either run directly by the state or through more anarchist methods like local syndicalism) then you're very left-wing.
If you believe that pretty much everything should be private property (including essential infrastructure and services like the health service, education system, road networks, the police, public transport ...) then (like the Tory government) you're on the extreme-right.
If you believe in some kind of compromise where some essential infrastructure and services (the police, the roads, the education system, the health service ...) are best off run as not-for-profit public services, while other things (non monopoly businesses, private dwellings, personal property) can be privately owned, then, like Jeremy Corbyn, you occupy the traditional centre-ground.
Just because, for whatever reason, people are incapable of recognising the distinction between left-wing and right-wing politics, doesn't mean that the distinction doesn't exist.
Why I don't like the "Loony Left" term
The whole left and right concept used to be highly confusing for me, I couldn't quite grasp what part was the part I would fit into but one day I just realized: I am empathetic, I care about other people, even those that I do not know, but I sympathise with their struggle and I would not class myself as rich or traditional in any way.
Since deciding on this role in my life it has been quite a challenge to stop those that disagree with certain points calling me things like a "loony leftie" and other such Conservative media born phrases from the 80's (aimed at certain Inner City Local Government Authorities) as a measure to deflect interest from the more left of society. The labels "hard left" and "soft left" was often used to describe a genuine political division within certain fractions of the Labour party but the label of "loony left" was the main one that people chose to use.
Jolyon Jenkins recorded in 1987 that 1986 was the climax of the Loony Left campaign, that it was the year:
when the Sun announced that it was going to award a prize — a symbolic two-finger statuette — to the "looniest" council of them all […] when the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday sent teams of reporters chasing round London boroughs in search of good (if not true) stories; when even The Times used the term without apparent irony. Most importantly, it was the year when Environment Secretary Nicholas Ridley and Conservative Party Chairman Norman Tebbit decided this could be harnessed as a vote winner for the Conservative Party.— Jolyon Jenkins, "The Green Sheep in "Colonel Gadhafi Drive"", New Statesman.
There seems to be something in society that thinks ridiculing people who believe in a more left sided kind of politics is a way of brushing off their concerns and just calling them "loony". The British newspapers have a history of "perfecting a way of representing the ideas and personalities associated with socialism as so deranged and psychotic that they represented a danger to society" Petley.
After the Party's defeat in the 1983 General Election one of the newspapers started branding Michael Foot's habit of swinging his walking stick as he went for his morning stroll as being that of an "escaped loony".
These labels were increasingly also applied to local councils within London: A March 1983 edition of the Sunday People labelled Islington local council the "Bananas republic"; and a February 1983 Mail on Sunday labelled it "The mad mad mad mad world of Islington". In some ways, the "Loony Left" campaign was a generalisation of the Conservative campaign of demonising Livingstone and the GLC.
The term Loony Left was also used to describe Neil Kinnock who had been subject to press vituperation since his election as party leader. In March 1987 he endorsed a rise of 60% in local council rates in Ealing, where he was a rate-payer. The Sun gave this the headline "Kinnock admits — I back loonies." and other newspapers put this forward as an example of support for extremism by the Labour Party leadership. A later story in the Daily Express, about how Ken Livingstone purportedly had a left-wing takeover of the party arranged, was denied by the Labour leadership only to have that reported as "Neil Denies Truth About Left Plot".
Similarly, Deirdrie Wood, Labour candidate in the 1987 Greenwich by-election, came to be known in the press as "Dreadful Deirdrie". Wood had been selected by her local constituency party against opposition from the Labour leadership. Privately, she had promised Kinnock "I won't drop you in it", to which he had replied "It's not you, it's those bastards out there", i.e. the press. Labour presented her as "a hard-working local woman with sensible policies", but the press portrayed her as a radical extremist both by association, as an IRA sympathiser living with a militant shop steward who was not the father of her children, and directly as a "hard left feminist, anti-racist and gay-rights supporter" (as one News of the World report put it) who wanted to twin London schools with PLO camps.
The eighties isn't where this term is left, apparently following some of Corbyn's policies would make me a "Loony Leftie" and only last week the awful rag that is The Sun had a headline: BARMY ARMY Labour Party membership rises by 100,000 as loony left try to rescue Comrade Corbyn. Now, I don't know about you but I am certainly not going to take any form of advice or listen to the nonsense that this dreadful paper wants to print but unfortunately many people do and will believe everything they read from the media. I just do not see anything "loony" about wanting a fairer more equal society for everyone.
Are you more left wing or right wing?
I got Mostly left wing!
I promise this is just a link to a newspaper article where there is a test you can complete.. Was it correct with your prediction?
Another Labour Party Split
I have heard that Labour MPs and Conservative MPs are in talks about creating a Centralist party where both can come together and leave a potential Leadsom led (we know that isn't happening) Conservative party and a Corbyn led Labour party:
"Tory and Labour MPs have held informal discussions about establishing a new political party in the event of Andrea Leadsom becoming prime minister and Jeremy Corbyn staying as Labour leader, a cabinet minister has disclosed.
Senior players in the parties have discussed founding a new centrist grouping in the mould of the Social Democratic party (SDP) should the two main parties polarise, according to the minister. Talks should be taken seriously, though they are still at an early stage, according to the source.
It is understood that MPs in both parties who campaigned to remain in the European Union believe there is an opportunity to build on the newly founded relationships between centrist MPs in both parties made before the EU referendum.
A senior Labour party source confirmed that at least one Conservative minister and one of the shadow cabinet ministers who resigned last week had been involved in discussions about such a reshaping of British politics."
Now, correct me if I am wrong but isn't this what the Liberal Democrats are for? The centre of the line type politics? After all, for the 1983 and 1987 General Elections the SDP formed an alliance with the Liberal Party. The party merged with the Liberal Party in 1988 to form the Social and Liberal Democrats, now the Liberal Democrats, although a minority left to form a continuing SDP led by David Owen.
"On 26 March 1981 a number of them broke away from Labour to found the Social Democratic Party (SDP). The new party attracted members of both the Labour and Conservative parties and also brought many people into politics for the first time. The Liberal Party and SDP formed the Alliance later the same year, agreeing to fight elections on a common platform with joint candidates.
The Alliance’s political impact was immediate, winning a string of by-election victories and topping the opinion polls for months. The two parties won 25 per cent of the vote in the 1983 general election, the best third-party performance since 1929, and only just behind Labour, on 27 per cent.
The Alliance gained further by-election victories in the 1983–87 Parliament, and made significant progress in local government, but tension between the leaderships of the two parties also became apparent. David Owen, the SDP’s leader from 1983, was personally less sympathetic towards the Liberals under David Steel than had been his predecessor Roy Jenkins, and was also more determined to maintain a separate (and in practice more right-wing) identity for his party; differences emerged most notably on defence. The Alliance’s share of the vote dropped to 23 per cent in the 1987 general election.
The Alliance parties spent the following eight months in lengthy negotiations over merger; the new party’s constitution and even its name both proved to be subjects of sometimes bitter controversy. The Social & Liberal Democrats were born on 3 March 1988, with Paddy Ashdown elected as the party’s first leader in July. Owen led a significant faction of Social Democrats opposed to merger, but after a couple of encouraging by-election results, the ‘continuing SDP’ declined into irrelevance and wound itself up in 1990."
So Labour and Conservative MPs split from their party and formed the SDP who then went on to form an alliance with The Liberal Party and called themselves the Alliance. More tensions surfaced between the new SDP and the Liberals due to another difference of opinion. Even though the Social and Liberal Democrats were born in 1988, Mr Owen decided to lead a significant faction who, again, disagreed with the merger and ended up declining into complete irrelevance.
What I take from this is that there are always going to be unhappy people in a party, they will always want something else and try and form different factions and different policies but in the long run it will all end up the same as the Owen led faction. To be able to take on the real enemy and fight for the people of the country you need to work together and move forward. People are saying that Corbyn is unelectable but he is obviously electable to some people as other wise he wouldn't be where he is. On Twitter I see a huge amount of support for Corbyn and a few complaints about him, CLP meetings I have witnessed so far have been a huge support for him. We are currently suffering, not just a significant split of MPs but a split of supporters and voters, each thinking that their own way is the best way, each believing to be psychic and knowing what will happen in the future. So, those who want Corbyn out will get Angela Eagle or Owen Smith which takes the Labour Party down a route that will push out the Corbyn supporters and lose that huge voting audience. Why is it we can't all work together, build a team and finally put some fight into getting rid of the Conservative Government?
This article is something I decided to throw together in the hope of explaining a few things to those that do not seem to be able to see the appeal in Corbyn.
People have gotten fed up of the greedy, those who place millions of pounds in off shore accounts, for example. Sure, its not illegal but that does not make it right. I have nothing against rich people, I think fair play to them for taking the bull by the horns and making something work out to make profits but I do have a problem with big businesses earning a fortune and hiding money abroad or avoiding their taxes. I have been told many times that if it was me I would do the same thing... Well actually, no I wouldn't, it would go against every part of my morals. We are charged tax automatically through our employers and some of us barely make £1000 per month so how is it fair that a large company or a multi millionaire can get away with paying taxes on money they earn? Some people make 100+ times what I make in a year and yet they need to avoid their taxes... Why? There are millions of people in this country that are starving, they do not know when their next meal will be or where it will come from (Food bank usage has escalated through the roof). Homelessness has only increased under this cold hearted Government and the disabled have been the most recently targeted. Who has been there so far to support them? Those MPs that voted for the cuts but are happy to claim expenses for Council Tax and Heating Oil? I know that many people do not like or agree with Social Welfare payments and other such benefits but I ask you to live a year in the lives of someone struggling, see how they have to cope with things on a daily basis and then let me know that you still believe the lies spread by the media that everyone is a scrounger. There will always be people that are the definitive of "works the system" but this works in each direction and does not mean that everyone does it. Some people genuinely struggle and judging them doesn't help them in any way possible. One day you could be in their shoes, please remember that!
I am not part of a militant mob, I am not confrontational, I am not an arguer, I do not throw names about when an argument doesn't suit me and I most certainly am not violent (I completely condemn anyone who threatens violence or in any way disrespects others).
I am a Corbyn supporter, a member of the Labour Party and I find Momentum to be a group that helps to speak for people like me not the vicious, vile group of activists they have been labelled as in the British Media and by MPs that disagree with most members opinions at the moment. If you want to call me a loony leftie because I have a belief that people actually deserve help sometimes then I will live with that and I can also live with my conscience, knowing that I have been able to stand up for myself and anyone like me.
I am understanding that not every one will like Jeremy Corbyn's policies, not everyone will like how he handles his business and not everyone will like the direction he wants to take the Labour party but the Referendum has all but shown that people are fed up with today's politicians - they feel like no one listens to them about their concerns (even if I do believe this was the wrong way to do it). To blame him (as MPs have) for the leave campaign winning is absolutely absurd and quite frankly, clutching at straws. I have been told that because I have a form of support for Corbyn I must have no sense, can't be a Labour supporter, don't understand politics, etc. Why is it, people seem to think that because you don't agree with them that you must be stupid? I have had enough of being told it will be another ten years of Conservative Government due to Corbyn. Maybe, if this Labour Party stuck together for a change, without giving the media a source for disruption, there would be a united party that people could start to trust again.
I am shocked that the Labour Party is supposed to believe in democracy and yet at the first chance most get, they disagree with the member's democracy and vote against their leader (voted in by the members). I have seen Twitter posts by people suggesting that Corbyn would rather launch legal challenge to NEC than trying to get nominations and I have a couple of things to say to that... Firstly, why is it always twisted back to Corbyn? What about the MPs who decided the best time to throw their fists in the ring was at the time the Conservative party could have been hit hardest? What about starting on the real enemy rather than a huge implosion of the Labour Party between members and MPs? Secondly, this party is a believer in democracy (apparently) and yet all I can hear is complaining about a majority mandate that put Corbyn as leader in the first place (which is definition of democracy I believe), it wasn't just £3 supporters but real members that has been speaking up through CLP's and shown a support of over 80% at their meetings.
Huge discussions about a Leadership contest have been going on for a while and finally on Monday 11 July 2016 Angela Eagle had enough nominations to challenge for the leadership, which is fine by me, If someone wants to do that then lets do it and put it to the test but why is it they seem so worried that they want to keep Jeremy Corbyn off of the ballot? The terminology of the rule book is not exactly specific but depending how you read it and how it can be legally interpreted:
"Where there is no vacancy, nominations may be sought by potential challengers each year prior to the annual session of party conference. In this case any nomination must be supported by 20 per cent of the Commons members of the PLP [Parliamentary Labour Party]."
So the words that are important here is "Challengers" and "no vacancy" and due to the fact Mr Corbyn is already the Leader, surely he is not classed as a challenger to his own post? The NEC have presently received contradicting legal advice, one from the Labour commissioned analysis and the other Unite-backed advice from Michael Mansfield QC. It has been said if he is not automatically on the ballot:
"Lawyers acting for Jim Kennedy, a trade union member of the committee, have written to party general secretary Iain McNicol warning they will take "injunctive action" unless Mr Corbyn is automatically included."
Whilst writing this part of my Conclusion I am waiting to see if the NEC decide that Corbyn needs to gain enough nominations to stand and if they decide he does, will the members turn their backs on a Party that prefers to fight each other? *UPDATE: Jeremy Corbyn will automatically be on the ballot after an 18-14 win via NEC voting.*
Some may not like the fact that Jeremy Corbyn is automatically on the ballot but if he is such a despised and unelectable person then surely it doesn't matter. Unelectable people do not win votes!