Corbyn's Magnetism

He only sacked one person from the front bench.

Corbyn sacks three frontbenchers after single market vote The Guardian, Jun 2017: www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/29/jeremy-corbyn-sacks-three-frontbenchers-after-single-market-vote

He'll be catching Trump up soon.

The Labour Party does not consist of only the front bench

The three in Chewbacca's list plus Hilary Benn plus Sarah Champion .

This makes six , five more than one ?

If you go back to the beginning of his leadership, there's loads - there was the big walk out after Hilary Benn. That must have been nearly 20 of them?

But then things changed and they realised that he had a majority of the membership. Right or wrong for you or me Primrose he and his view of where the party should be going is who his party wants.

When people walk out it doesn't mean they have been sacked.
Can MPs go to the unions to ask them about constructive dismissal?

And it's still not a Stalinist purge.
Stalin killed people.

Tom London

It is observable that Corbyn is in charge of the shadow cabinet.
May by contrast is not in charge of the Cabinet; she is defied frequently by ministers, but she is too weak to sack them.

Think about how long she took to not sack Hunt.

Look at what Boris says, what normal PM would put up with that?

May hasn't got Momentum getting rid of problems for her,

Frank Field wants to be deselected.
He's been writing for the S*n, and was asked to apologise at his constituency meeting. He said he wasn't going to be muzzled, and if they didn't like it they could deselect him.

Jumping before pushed , a loss to the party

So you are really bothered about the fact that he was writing for the s*n, as a Birkenhead MP?

May hasn't got Momentum?
This man used to be her chief whip. She chooses her own problems.

"The Defence Secretary said three new £116 million Navy boats, HMS Forth, HMS Trent and HMS Medway, would be the UK’s “eyes and ears” in the Royal Navy Fishery Protection Squad.

He proclaimed: “The Royal Navy has a proud tradition of protecting the UK’s coastline and keeping a close eye on our fishing waters.

“With these state-of-the-art, vastly capable ships we stand ready to protect our fisheries once Britain leaves the EU.” "

Gavin Williamson, in case you've forgotten his name, the man who keeps a tarantula on his desk top.

Tom London

It is deeply depressing that some of Jeremy Corbyn’s political opponents make baseless smears of antisemitism against him in order to seek political advantage. Not only is this very wrong in itself, it also makes the necessary fight against actual antisemitism that much harder.

Corbyn's full explanation.

Is it against the law to write for the Sun? Could it be it is against Momentum run NEC ?

Hillsborough? The Sun blaming the fans for being drunk and rioting?
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-38582111

I can't believe you haven't heard of it, Annie.

This should make it more obvious.

It's not an explanation Jen, it's an excuse. And it's a very bad one. That's why it's not a baseless smear.

His comment on the anti-semitic mural specifically mentioned art removed for the reason of content. (I'm assuming he really referenced Diego Rivera, the Mexican artist, not Vieira, the footballer he confused him with.) So, he was acknowledging that content was relevant. He did look. He couldn’t have made the comment without looking and understanding the context of the content.

So he's a liar, as well as a hypocrite and an anti-semite.
The commenting is bad enough. The coverup just makes it seem a thousand times worse.

Notice there's no apology there. Just an excuse that quite frankly isn't worthy of a schoolboy caught drawing on the toilet wall let alone a prime minister.

I think it's a good idea for MPs to write articles for newspapers that are not their natural political home Annie. It's a good opportunity to get your ideas across 'to the other side'. The Guardian even has a 'burst your bubble' feature now, where they curate interesting articles from the right in the US. Matthew D'Ancona who writes for the Guardian works at a Tory think tank and spent years at the Telegraph.

It's not a big deal at all, is it?

And Jen, it's not as though that mural had no local coverage at the time it was created.

www.eastlondonadvertiser.co.uk/news/politics/fury-over-brick-lane-s-anti-semitic-mural-1-1553592

Read the article. It's dreadful - it was even reported to the Met Police. It was condemned by everyone. It was in a neighbouring Labour constituency about 0.5 mile from his constituency boundary.

I don't understand how you can defend this.

I understand it Primrose......some people are so blinded by the ‘rightness of their cause’ that they fail to see what’s under their noses, and if they do happen to see a donkey they still claim that it’s a thoroughbred horse.

So what if Frank Field writes in The Sun, you will usually get a dissenting voice in newspapers, it’s quite a common occurence in most newspapers.
It would be very narrow minded to try and muffle where a person, even an MP ,writes or speaks ....with the exception of
Aiding or extolling another country against our national security or ditto with banned, dodgy or terrorist organisations.

I have looked back at the particular piece ""Freedom of Humanity", amongst many pieces of wall art in Brick Lane. It is one among many bit it is one that seems to have created yet another stick to beat Corbyn with. As art I think it speaks volumes about how the world is run. The one thing I do not think it that it says is anything about any particular groups religion.

Then I had a look at who created the brouhaha about the none existent ante-Semitism in it - it seems to have come originally and exclusively from the Jewish Chronicle. My feeling about this particular organ of the press has, for a long time, been that someone ought to tell them the story about The Boy who Called Wolf. Why have some papers made such a splash about this and dragged Corbyn when it really has nothing to do with him.. Could it be to do with this - The truth about the UK's pro-Israel lobbies

One has to ask why comments made by Corbyn have been turned into propaganda of the worst kind. Did Corbyn say anything anti-Semitic - NO. Did he in anyway support anti-Semitism - NO. Did he initially support the piece of art for what most people would see when they look at it, i.e., that the rich do their business on the backs of the poor of the world – YES – but so do many others.

And then you have question why, on GN, this becomes more about Corbyn than the art itself and more about attacking the left than any real concern for anti-Semitic comment (which is tenuous at best). I think we all know the answer to why the far-right on here attack Corbyn but have yet to have a positive thread about those he is actually standing against. Those who are happy to shape their politics by taking from the poor to give to those who already have more than they could ever need.

This is not about an attack on any religion - the idea that there is such an attack is simply spurious. It is about a party that protects just a small proportion of the population while thousands suffer. It is about its supporters not being able to tolerate a piece of art that says this. It is about it supporters having nothing positive to say, only mud to sling.

It's about respect for people in his own constituency, lemon.

Why have people brought up a story that is six years old to try and say that Corbyn is anti-semitic?
If you read the photo on the link I put he gets the wording right. Somebody else misspelt the names, probably to cause even further mischief.
Labour are going to win the London local elections in May, so someone decided to dredge up the worst thing they could find against Corbyn.