Even Corbyn supporting MPs criticising him now

[Tangled Metal]

Read a few news reports of a meeting of PLP with Corbyn. Apparently there were a few heated moments.

The problem for Corbyn is two of the most impassioned speeches criticising him were from staunch allies of Corbyn.

Everything from his leadership over Brexit, antisemitism to his instructions not to openly criticise his key officials. Seems there's some unhappy Labour MPs and they're also coming from his most loyal supporters in the PLP.

So is this a problem for his leadership? I don't think so but with where we have got to over the last 3 or 4 years all bets are off.

[PH]

Lot of words there, but not much detail.

[NUKe]

What a re you reading the Torygraph, or the daily fail. ever since he became leader the right wing press jhave tried to stir these stories up.

[mercalia]

Corbyns problem is that he doesnt like the presidential style of leadership? ( thankgoodness ) so he seems in effectual and weak? He is very much a party man

[661-Pete]

What a re you reading the Torygraph, or the daily fail. ever since he became leader the right wing press jhave tried to stir these stories up.

Right wing press outlets such as this one, for instance?

[pete75]

What a re you reading the Torygraph, or the daily fail. ever since he became leader the right wing press jhave tried to stir these stories up.

Right wing press outlets such as this one, for instance?

A change for you right of centrists to give the Guardian any credibility. I just hope you regard it so when it criticises the Tories or Mr Farage.

[Tangled Metal]

Sorry should have linked to where I read about it. It was the very right wing guardian. Sorry, I should say the guardian we all love.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/10/jeremy-corbyn-lambasted-by-labour-mps-in-worst-meeting-as-leader

BTW I don't read the daily fail unless someone on here links to it. The daily tory graph only lets you see part of a page unless you sign up or something. Not interested enough for that. Stopped reading the telegraph after leaving home where it was free. When I paid for my own papers I got guardian and independent. When at school I did buy another newspaper that was completely new but closed down after a year. Can't remember the name but it was a kind of European centric paper iirc. Basically I'm centre right but prefer centre left newspapers.

[Tangled Metal]

The guardian's chief political correspondent no less wrote the article.

It's a good source of information if you look at the news articles instead of the comment pieces.

So would anyone like to comment on the story now it's been shown to come from a trusted source?

[661-Pete]

The daily tory graph only lets you see part of a page unless you sign up or something.

I believe the Torygraph lets you read one or two entire articles per week for free, provided you sign up (also for free). Any more than that - you have to pay.

Not interested enough for that.

Can't argue with that! But I do sometimes look in, for the very different slant...

[Mike Sales]

It's a good source of information if you look at the news articles instead of the comment pieces.

Facts are sacred, Comment is free.

C.P.Scott.

[PH]

The guardian's chief political correspondent no less wrote the article.

It's a good source of information if you look at the news articles instead of the comment pieces.

So would anyone like to comment on the story now it's been shown to come from a trusted source?

Would you like to find a piece, other than comment, where the Guardian hasn’t been critical of Corbyn? They have their agenda just like every other publication, but it isn’t a socialist one. They have for example been leading the anti Semitic allegations, offering very little right of reply. I’m more likely to trust the Telegraph at least they’re agenda is clearly understood.

[Tangled Metal]

But what's happening in labour? MPs complaining about the way he's handling antisemitism, general discipline (opponents of Corbyn get kicked out without a disciplinary process but allies of Corbyn have a lengthy process), opposition to being told they can't criticise his closest advisors / officials or criticise his policy on Brexit. It seems to me that there could be a growing uneasiness with Corbyn among PLP if even close allies are questioning him in meetings.

[Tangled Metal]

The guardian's chief political correspondent no less wrote the article.

It's a good source of information if you look at the news articles instead of the comment pieces.

So would anyone like to comment on the story now it's been shown to come from a trusted source?

Would you like to find a piece, other than comment, where the Guardian hasn’t been critical of Corbyn? They have their agenda just like every other publication, but it isn’t a socialist one. They have for example been leading the anti Semitic allegations, offering very little right of reply. I’m more likely to trust the Telegraph at least they’re agenda is clearly understood.

So you doubt the meeting was as reported or it was another deliberate hatchet piece.

[PH]

I wasn’t there. I’m sure there is disagreement in the PLP, over just about everything, poor results in the Euro elections will have made it worse. Typically the Guardian sources are unnamed, it’s entirely possible that other unnamed sources would have put a different slant on it, different that is to the one that fits the Guardian agenda.
The Labour Party is in trouble, it is unable to get its policies across, its unable to reconcile what its membership wants and what it believes the electorate will accept. I don’t know how or if that can be resolved, but a dishonest media won’t allow us to judge fairly.
Disagreement in a meeting of the PLP is not a bad thing, there’s never been a unified party, but in the end it’s a party of its members not just the MPs.

[Tangled Metal]

How do you know this is a case of dishonest media? Although there's no attributed comments there's some detail there and if I read it right there were a few MPs talking to the guardian. There's no easy of knowing how correct their portrayal of the meeting is but I don't think there is any reason to dismiss it as dishonest neither unless you've got your own bias going on.

The detail such as who said what and even a kind of time line or order of those comments. I haven't read anything like it before about PLP meetings and robust criticism of Corbyn.