Wednesday, 26 April 2017

PMQ's today shows we need to look for deeper meaning in Corbyn's actions

I don't think the news highlights are going to be good for the Red team. Mr Corbyn went back to his bizarre Margaret from Grantham type questions - all allowing the Prime Minister free hits on Labour.


Why is he trying to lose so badly? Clearly, Corbyn is not trying to win, but what does he have to gain by losing?


Is there some long-term game whereby soft Labour is annihilated at the election allowing for a splinter of Marxist loons to arise in their place - this surely is a long-shot in a two-party system with First Past the Post elections.


However, he is not trying to win...so there must be some logic or reason behind it?

22 comments:

Anonymous said...

The only logical conclusion is that Corbyn is Tory a plant. Soon his mission will be complete and Agent Corbyn can come home again after forty years in deep cover...

Elby the Beserk said...

Some Labour bloke of some years standing - Alan Johnson? - said that Corbyn's politics haven't changed since he was 15. So we have got pre-JCR "Socialism" guiding his tiny little brain. Pretty much a daily car crash really.

This good lady has it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1E1TcXsskkY


If the Labour Party had any balls, they all jump ship, leaving Corbyn and Momentum to disappear down the u-bend. They could call the new party "New New Labour". Or summat like that

Scan said...

Trot plant? New Labour plant. So they can rise from the ashes at the behest of an adoring nation. Free from the legacy of Blair and Brown, because most people don't have memories that long. David Miliband, forging the new path for Emperer Blair to retake his rightful throne, and thus, save the world!

Bill Quango MP said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bill Quango MP said...

I've given up trying to ascribe ulterior, deeper motives to him

Its just classic Sherlock Holmes.

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."

And that means he isn't some super manipulator, shrinking the labour party so small he can manipulate the next round of party elections to completely take over the corpse. He is just a ridiculous, unimaginative, stubborn old Trot who should have retired around the time Wham split up.

dearieme said...

Perhaps what needs explanation was the Ed Miliband decision that handed the party to Jezza. Like father like son?

Anonymous said...

Just a ridiculous, unimaginative, stubborn old Trot who should have retired around the time Wham split up

Quite apt. Can you fit all of that on a gravestone?

Perhaps a meme would do it - like the last one.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/Edstone.jpg

Steven_L said...

Because it's not about winning, it's about principals, and principals are more important that winning?

Same reason people sometimes blow all their assets on divorces lawyers basically.

Professor Pizzle said...

My 2 cents.

Two things at play.

1. Corbyn and his mob are not revolutionaries. They detest democracy and are far more concerned about 'purity' as opposed to unimportant things like winning elections or actually helping people. Social democrats and Liberals suck support away from revolution and are to be destroyed where possible. The destruction of the Labour Party is therefore a feature and not a bug to them.

2. They are quite happy to wait.

The thinking goes, 'When the next (now inevitable) crony-capitalism shit storm/financial/re-adjustment happens then the man in the street will be looking for someone to hang.

Corbyn's mob will able to say, "Wasn't us, guv! We warned you!" So no matter how truly awful, incompetent and treacherous they are the angry Brits will vote them in.

The worrisome thing is that it might work – if the next crash/robot job-replacement is painful enough.

Professor Pizzle said...

Sorry. Above should say 'ARE' revolutionaries.

Anonymous said...

This is my explanation - JC is an MI5 operative. I reckon he was recruited in the 70s to keep an eye on the 'Reds under the Bed', which he was well placed to do, and then later in the 80s told to try and make overtures to the IRA to get what info he could from them as well. When the Good Friday Agreement put paid to the IRA threat, the Islamic Terrorists arrived, and guess who Jeremy is talking too at every opportunity?

So far so good, but it all went Pete Tong when he got elected Labour leader, entirely by accident. What was the best cover ever, maverick Hard Left Labour MP, accepted in all the sort of circles no other operative could imagine getting access to, suddenly became a massive liability. They couldn't have their undercover operative ending up as Prime Minister, which would be entirely possible, given an unexpected economic catastrophe, so what to do?

Answer - be as awful a leader as possible in order to a) discredit the Hard Left and b) ensure he never gets near power. Hence the utter stupidity of his actions and statements to the media - they are not the actions of a man who wishes to paint himself and his party in as positive a light as possible to gain votes, they are the actions of a man with an agenda - to not win anything, at all, ever.

Bill Quango MP said...

Anon 7:39 makes me reconsider the evidence.
But possibly his antisemitism is also a cover. He works for Mossad too.

He is The Rabbi who came in from the cold.

Raedwald said...

But why does Corbyn not attract the sort of vituperative hate that Michael Foot did? Shagger Johnson's 'Mutton headed old Mugwump' is almost affectionate - the right loathed Foot deeply and viciously and nothing so kind was said about him. Until he was dead.

Foot of course had both a keen mind and sharp oratorial skill but was utterly deluded. Poor Corbyn is just utterly deluded; the first boy in his class to get hold of Mao's little red book he's been living on the hubris ever since.

Electro-Kevin said...

This isn't a contest between Labour and Tories. It is a contest to get as many Europhile MPs in Parliament. Miller and Branson are on to it.

We are being distracted.

May's mandate for Brexit would be a reduced Tory majority with MORE Eurosceptic MPs, rather than an increased Tory majority with fewer Eurosceptic MPs.

Electro-Kevin said...

Blair is on to it too.

andrew said...


I think he really, genuinely, does not care what other people think about him.

He genuinely, deeply, does care about the arguments he puts forward.

He understands some basic comms techniques
- that you need to root these arguments in terms that mean something to ordinary people which is why he stands up with 'letters from glenys'
- the virtue of repetition (bob dylan / woodie guthrie protest songs)

His legacy is not intended to be a lab govt in '17.

His legacy is intended to be a lab govt in 2020-30 that is based on his ideals.

Through simple clunking repetition he is trying to get the electorate to consider his ideals as 'normal' (I think this is called moving the overton window).

I have a degree of sympathy with him.

Listening to Boris on R4 today (8.10 27/04/17), he lies and elides and attempts to rewrite the past - simply ignores what he finds uncomfortable and just says what suits him - making no attempt to answer the questions.

You cannot have a ideals-based or fact-based debate with a person like that.

Gardener Fisher said...

I think that it is a mistake to underestimate people. He is probably sincere and I think a lot of people are helping to push him to catastrophe. Blair must know he is held in contempt and that every time he threatens to come back more people will vote conservative. I think the centre left is pushing for May, who strikes me as a centre left politician who could have been in Blairs cabinet. Not seeing she is not moral or straight, just that I do not see her as anything like a proper conservative.

May gets a landslide, we end up with a centre left govt which all the lovies and snowflakes can live with and we end up with a Brexit that is expensive, ineffective and a fudge. Quite frankly I hope the French get le pen, she might be able to force the Commission to see sense, something that Cameron was incapable of doing. Just typing Cameron makes me feel annoyed.

CityUnslicker said...

Anon at 7.39 gets 5 stars and a cigar for that post.

andrew said...


If anon is right, JC will soon say something supportive of Iran / North Korea.

Anonymous said...

BQ - I don't think Corbyn is antisemitic, except perhaps in the modern sense of not being a fan of Israeli government policy. And after all, Netanyahu's policies, in any other 'western' state, would be universally condemned.

I don't think the Israeli idea of a state existing for the benefit and survival of its founding people is a bad idea at all (that's what separate countries used to be for), but in polite society today such ideas are racist anathema, with the exception of one state - and only one.

Anonymous said...

"But why does Corbyn not attract the sort of vituperative hate that Michael Foot did?"

Footy attracted plenty of vituperation from the right and the Murdoch press, but inside his own party was almost universally respected, even loved, perhaps as a link to the great Labour days of Attlee and Bevan.

Corbyn by contrast has implacable opposition inside his own party - opposition which is almost independent of any policy positions he adopts and for which the worst possible electoral outcome would be a Labour victory.

Electro-Kevin said...

Miller is preparing the ground so that she can read a Conservative majority as "Our tactical voting campaign has worked. See ? The people have elected MORE Europhile MPs !"