Jump to content

Talk:Jeremy Corbyn

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Corbyn)

    Father

    [edit]

    Sources come up online for his mother being a maths teacher, and for his father being an engineer (for GEC); nothing seems to come up with relation to his being an expert in power rectifiers. Where did this come from?

    college?

    [edit]

    with two A levels at grade E how did he go to college? He failed to graduate? Something not right here. 89.243.48.130 (talk) 21:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It's entirely plausible (and backed up by sources) that he was admitted on to his course with those grades. North London Poly is not Oxford or Cambridge. Mark and inwardly digest (talk) 14:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I got two Es at "A" level. I was admitted to University of London, Bedford College, to study philosophy. This was long before the grade-inflation that has resulted in anything less than four A++'s being considered a waste of exam fees. MrDemeanour (talk) 13:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Could someone clarify why he was not permitted to stand as a candidate?

    [edit]

    Currently the article mentions that he had unanimous support from the local Constituency Labour Party. According to this article of Brevia Consulting (relatively well known among those in government) all that is then needed is for a local husting to confirm who gets selected out of a shortlist compiled by the CLP. (https://www.brevia.co.uk/news/politics/how-are-parliamentary-candidates-selected/)

    But if that didn't happen, at what stage and how was he not permitted to stand? I could email him and ask myself but since Wikipedia prefers secondary sources perhaps someone who better understands UK politics could look into it? Cheers 46.162.86.84 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    You’ve probably found your answer by now, but basically, the Labour Party National Executive Committee has effectively unlimited purview on who they choose to let stand as a Labour Candidate. The NEC passed a motion banning him from standing, claiming that it was an electoral liability. маsтегрнатаLк 21:24, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Masterpha Agree that this would be the Labour Party's official stance, but that said I think this is a question where you would get a variety of different answers on depending on which sources you quoted, and updating the article would probably require presenting multiple points of view. Many of these answers aren't mutually exclusive—for example, many of Corbyn's supporters would state that it was part of an ongoing attempt to remove left-wing or left-leaning members from the Labour Party—but if the question is what's the primary reason? No-one knows for certain, and given it was decided by committee different people may've had different reasons. EditorOnOccasion (talk) 10:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course. The most we can do with regards to that is to state what happened, i.e. the NEC passed a motion which prevented him from standing, and then follow up with alleged motivations. One of them may have been to purge leftist members, and we can quote leftist MPs and Corbyn allies such as John McDonnell and Diane Abbott on that. Starmer actually has claimed on many occasions that it was due to his ‘zero-tolerance stance’ on antisemitism. Starmer himself being a member of the NEC, as well as the elected Leader of the Party with considerable influence, it’s reasonable to conclude that this was one of the many motivations behind passing that motion. маsтегрнатаLк 12:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Although according to some sources, anti-Semitism was used as a pretext to remove left-wing elements from the party. It's hard to believe that Starmer would disallow any candidate based on principles. TFD (talk) 17:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Clarification on lede

    [edit]

    @Roger 8 Roger Apologies if the wording itself is grammatically incorrect, I thought that it was being changed to a past tense due to uncertainty of his status as an MP. English is indeed not my first language. Nontheless, doesn’t “has served as” imply the individual is not currently serving as but had done so? If so, is there a way to appropriately reword this in a grammatically correct way,

    Respectfully, Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 07:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    'has served as' is a present perfect tense. That means it is about something that exists now (present time) (he IS an MP) following from a fixed past time, ie 1983, (ie since 1983).. and that state of being an MP continued from 1883 till now. The word 'since' means that is the starting point of actions in the past. If this isn't clear please google present perfect tense. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. Thanks for the clarification. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 08:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2024

    [edit]

    The photograph under "Post-leadership" has the wrong year. Change "Corbyn sits on the backbenches in his first Prime Minister's Questions since his resignation as Labour leader, 22 April 2024" to "Corbyn sits on the backbenches in his first Prime Minister's Questions since his resignation as Labour leader, 22 April 2020." NOTES: The uploaded photo correctly attributes its origin to 2020, but the caption is incorrectly stated as 2024. Corbin's first PMQs after stepping down from leadership was in 2020. Phillips-Bee (talk) 15:50, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Done meamemg (talk) 21:41, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Odd omission

    [edit]

    Shouldn't we have a section on the 2017 general election in which Theresa May lost her parliamentary majority and the Labour Party increased its seats by 30 and its vote by 9%? Seems notable. Burrobert (talk) 12:50, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter removed it because, "Trimmed leader of the opposition section as it has a sub-article, rightfully restored as there was no consensus to remove it." [1][03:18, 2 August 2024] Possibly did not notice as a large amount of material was deleted. TFD (talk) 23:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. 122,217 bytes removed!! I will have a look through it. At least a summary of the 2017 election must be mentioned here. Burrobert (talk) 03:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]