McDonnell accused of supporting call to ban MI5 & disarm the police

[Osem]

John McDonnell is at the centre of a row about whether he endorsed a statement before the election advocating doing away with MI5, special police forces and armed officers.

The controversy broke out after it emerged the shadow chancellor’s name was on a long list, apparently of people who had signed a statement by the Socialist Campaign for a Labour Victory (SCLV).

The final paragraph of the 12-point document states: “Disband MI5 and special police squads, disarm the police.”

The shadow chancellor’s office said on Thursday he believed no such thing and denied he had ever signed the statement, which was prepared before May 2015.

“The letter has never been put in front of John and he’s never signed it,” a spokesman said, pointing out that he had supported extra funding for the security services in the wake of the Paris terror attacks.

Sources close to McDonnell suggested his name might have been included in the list because of a cut and paste error. “These things are normally websites managed by one person and it’s their little hobby horse and it’s not very credible … It’s probably people getting a little bit carried away and just whacking something up.”

However, the Sun then produced a picture of McDonnell holding what appears to be the document, based on a comparison with the campaign material on the SCLV website.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...-disarm-police

What sort of party is Corbyn running? They seem to be hell bent on creating a 1970's style loony left London borough.

Corbyn isn't going to last long me thinks. Even his own cabinet brief against him.

[adzii_nufc]

Yeah the guy made an impact but his ideas are becoming incredibly ridiculous now, Nuclear Disarmament a few weeks ago wasn't it? Stripping the UK of it's super power status.

He sounds more like a green peace leader than a politician. I think he's doing an amazing job of burying the labour party and handing the tories a landslide election. If he can convince people in his own party to follow his beliefs then I think that settles it.

[Kabaal]

It's like they just appoint people randomly in the labour party these days.

[Taf]

Originally Posted by Kabaal

It's like they just appoint people randomly in the labour party these days.

Caretakers to take the flak until close to an election when the real leaders will be announced ...

[nomadking]

These are people SELECTED by the Labour party, VOTED in by Labour voters and around for SEVERAL years. They weren't just randomly dragged off the street yesterday.

[adzii_nufc]

I don't support any party so can look at it as a complete neutral, Miliband wasn't this much of a tool, it's like Corbyn is trying to press a giant self destruct button within the labour party. Miliband was weak overall but he wasn't by any means a complete nutter.

---------- Post added at 21:34 ---------- Previous post was at 21:30 ----------

Originally Posted by nomadking

These are people SELECTED by the Labour party, VOTED in by Labour voters and around for SEVERAL years. They weren't just randomly dragged off the street yesterday.

It makes me question their choice, did they have any intention of building support for the next election, it's been made clear that you won't win an election by just relying on the areas that are generally favorable to supporting one party regardless of Policy, notably the North East whom just vote labour blindly each time (My source being my own grandmother for one)

They'd have to steal seats away or pander to the neutrals like myself. Right now however, I don't feel like I want to vote to elect a guy that's coming across as an absolute madman.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by adzii_nufc

I don't support any party so can look at it as a complete neutral, Miliband wasn't this much of a tool, it's like Corbyn is trying to press a giant self destruct button within the labour party. Miliband was weak overall but he wasn't by any means a complete nutter.

---------- Post added at 21:34 ---------- Previous post was at 21:30 ----------



It makes me question their choice, did they have any intention of building support for the next election, it's been made clear that you won't win an election by just relying on the areas that are generally favorable to supporting one party regardless of Policy, notably the North East whom just vote labour blindly each time (My source being my own grandmother for one)

They'd have to steal seats away or pander to the neutrals like myself. Right now however, I don't feel like I want to vote to elect a guy that's coming across as an absolute madman.

They haven't just materialised out of nowhere. They have been around for quite a while. If they are truly undesirable or unrepresentative of the Labour party, why weren't they got rid of a long time ago?

[alanbjames]

Corbyn won't last long with all the controversy he will be gone by next summer as they will realize no one would vote labour with him as leader.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by alanbjames

Corbyn won't last long with all the controversy he will be gone by next summer as they will realize no one would vote labour with him as leader.

There's a few around here who think he's great!

[adzii_nufc]

Originally Posted by nomadking

They haven't just materialised out of nowhere. They have been around for quite a while. If they are truly undesirable or unrepresentative of the Labour party, why weren't they got rid of a long time ago?

I have no idea who he is, then again I already made it clear I follow neither party. Just making it known that this guy's statements are turning my head for the wrong reason. That's why I'm questioning what the Labour party are up to.

Can they really win an election using Corbyn? I never suggested he appeared out of nowhere, that wasn't my post. I was just questioning the Labour parties choice after you correctly made clear he was chosen through a system and not out of the blue.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by nomadking

They haven't just materialised out of nowhere. They have been around for quite a while. If they are truly undesirable or unrepresentative of the Labour party, why weren't they got rid of a long time ago?

Because they were largely irrelevant for decades and clearly not representative of anything very significant. Due to Labour's implosion following the Brown/Miliband years, they're no longer irrelevant. The token lefty clown is now running the Labour circus and that says far more about those who stood against him than anything else.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by adzii_nufc

Stripping the UK of it's super power status.

And here we have it in a nutshell. We spend billions so Dave can strut around at a penis contest with other 'super power' leaders, haven't got a bean for police or the NHS but we have billions for nukes, they aren't even independent, yeah you go Dave only trouble is every one else at the top table knows the truth

http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thoms...dependent/9293

[rhyds]

The only logical explanation for Labour allowing Corbyn to carry on like this is to finally kill off Labour's hard left faction by showing them to be about as electable as Jimmy Saville.

Labour has been infiltrated by large numbers of hard-left activists who have an unweighted vote in the choice of leadership thanks to idiotic changes made to the selection system by a certain Mr E Miliband. There is no point in the PLP trying to unseat him in a coup, because the constituency that selected him is still there.

The Tories already found out all this to their cost, when Iain Duncan Smith was elected on the strength of his popularity amongst the broader membership, in spite of the reservations of the party's MPs. A party's grass roots does not reflect the wider electorate. The leader must primarily attract the support of the Parliamentary party, because the Parliamentary party is the only vehicle by which laws might be made and the country might be governed. And for the parliamentary party to be elected, its leader must have appeal beyond the core vote (and most certainly beyond the activist base, which is even narrower). Also, the Parliamentary party consists of of politicians, who are usually rather better at understanding how to appeal to the masses. They have to be, because their own jobs depend on it.