frankPodmore

They wouldn't put this tease in the trailer if they weren't actually bringing Him back, right?

Right?

I think if you'd skipped the 'You're insane, you believe [things I don't believe]' bit, it would be a reasonable request, sure.

Describing my comments as 'deranged' and the type of views you claim I'm expressing as 'disturbing', and then going, 'Well, technically, I didn't say you were deranged or disturbing' is school playground-level stuff, and you know it.

The rest of your comment is just another series of mischaracterisations of my views. I don't really mind whether I get - and certainly haven't asked for - 'warmer' posts, I'd just prefer not to have my views described inaccurately or characterised as mad. Not an unreasonable request, I think you'll agree!

'On 26–29 June 2016, 21 members of the Shadow Cabinet resigned from the frontbench.'

That's twenty-one resignations over four days, so not one a day.

I don't think the rest of your comment is relevant. I accepted that the 'fully supportive' quote was accurate at the outset, so clearly I'm not questioning the media's reporting. I'm just saying it's not clear what will happen next - because it isn't - and simply observing that they've yet to say anything about it outside of this comment which comes from 'a source close to Corbyn', not from the MPs. The rest of your comment is speculation. It may all come true, yes, and I wouldn't even be particularly surprised if it did. But it also may not.

You've made an assertion with no examples, while calling me 'deranged' and 'disturbing' for... making an assertion with no examples. So, I think you'll understand that I don't feel any compulsion to comply with your request.

For the record, I'm not a liberal (capital 'L' or otherwise), I don't hate Corbyn and if there's a church of Toynbee(?), I'm not part of it.

Corbyn's Cabinet did not resign one a day, although, as you say, they should have done. In fact, they were in such a rush to resign that the Whips couldn't keep up. Some resigned individually and some in groups. It was exactly this total disorganisation which led to their failure!

In any case, I've got replies here telling me it's a publicly known fact that they're all supportive one way or another, and you telling me they're going to build up to announcing public support. These can't both be true.

Fully supportive, but not supportive enough to put their names to the launch? Fair enough, but I guess we'll see how it shakes out.

Can I just gently point out that you've yet again badly misinterpreted someone's comment and found a reason to be angry and hostile, but this time towards someone who agrees with you.

I sincerely think you need to read a little bit more slowly and think a little more carefully about what you've read before you respond!

It's not clear yet if all the pro-Gaza independents or the suspended Labour MPs have signed up to this. Only Corbyn and Sultana's names on the statement!

Nope, because, as we've seen, the new party still doesn't exist.

They really should just formalise Momentum as a party, tell the Momentum-affiliated Labour MPs to jump or be pushed, and use Momentum as the name. Already has recognition, for one thing.

I’m convinced it’s a pride thing, the Greens stood against them in the 2017/19 and they’re holding onto that grudge.

This will be an unpopular comment here, but narcissism really is Corbyn's dominant personality trait, so you may well be right.

But even so, there is an old school Marxist way of looking at political parties, which is that any member-funded party is de facto materially a bourgeois party regardless of what its policy platform is. I think a lot of people on the left share that view, which has always limited the appeal of the Greens to Labour's left flank. I think that if Corbyn had his own way, he'd set up a party along the lines of Labour's original organising principle, in which there was no individual membership; you could only join if you were a member of an affiliated union or a socialist society (like the Fabians, which basically became a way for middle class people to join the Labour party!).

Again, though, this is a case where both explanations - pride/narcissism AND genuinely held philosophical views - can be true!