Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)

Dobba said:
Oh you were being serious. Jess has been dining out on her made up story about telling Diane Abbott to feck off (and then publicly wondering why more people don't do it - then acted shocked and appalled when thousands of people continue to do just that) for years, she's become the media darling she is almost entirely because of it. Well, that and her willingness to appear in any TV, radio or print media segment about how she's best mates with Tory MPs, especially anti-abortion (even in cases of rape/incest) and dining partner to people who advocate the repatriation of "non-indigenous" Britons, Jacob Rees-Mogg. Before her big media break, her only other political claim to fame outside of Birmingham Yardley was ousting Dawn Butler as chair of the Women's Parliamentary Labour Party.

So, at best, her supporting of women in politics is a little more selective than that of people in opposing parties.
Click to expand...

Hmmm... I'll happily admit I know very little about her but your character assassination seems like exactly the sort of thing that caused @Oscie to bring her name into the discussion. I mean, let's focus on the bit in bold (which is on my mind, because of the imminent referendum in Ireland)

A quick google for her views on this topic reveals the following:

Mr Rees-Mogg, who has recently been tipped as a potential Tory leadership candidate, told Good Morning Britain yesterday: “I am completely opposed to abortion, life begins at the point of conception. “With same-sex marriage, that is something that people are doing for themselves. With abortion, that is what people are doing to the unborn child." Asked if his view applied in all circumstances including rape, the MP said he was “afraid so,” but added that he didn't think the law should change. The remarks were met with immediate condemnation, with Labour MP Jess Phillips saying the choices women make over their own bodies “should have nothing to do with the religious views of our politicians,” Link
Click to expand...

Maria Caulfield, the Conservative party’s vice-chair for women, has called for a debate on reducing the 24-week time limit for women to receive legal abortions. “The 24-week limit was introduced at a time when babies were really not viable at 24 weeks. Now babies who are born premature grow up to live long, healthy lives like the rest of us.” Jess Phillips, chair of the women’s parliamentary Labour party, criticised Caulfield’s comments. She said: “Maria Caulfield is anti-choice and should have the guts to say it rather than pussyfooting with step-by-step limiting measures. “She bases her views not on clinical evidence but on conservative attitudes that don’t trust women to make the choices that are right for them. I trust clinicians and women, not those who wish to control us.” Link
Click to expand...

Your beef seems to mainly be with her having an (alleged) row with Diane Abbott, her willingness to talk to the media (maybe Abbott could learn a thing or two from her about how to handle these interviews?) and daring to have friends who are conservative MPs. Seems like a bit of a leap from all of that to discredit her political opinions.

All of which is a great example of the likes of Momentum smearing people based on the company they keep rather than the policies they support. It all seems unnecessarily divisive and - as I said - is a terrible way to win a general election.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Hmmm... I'll happily admit I know very little about her but your character assassination seems like exactly the sort of thing that caused @Oscie to bring her name into the discussion. I mean, let's focus on the bit in bold (which is on my mind, because of the imminent referendum in Ireland)

A quick google for her views on this topic reveals the following:





Your beef seems to mainly be with her having an (alleged) row with Diane Abbott, her willingness to talk to the media (maybe Abbott could learn a thing or two from her about how to handle these interviews?) and daring to have friends who are conservative MPs. Seems like a bit of a leap from all of that to discredit her political opinions.

All of which is a great example of the likes of Momentum smearing people based on the company they keep rather than the policies they support. It all seems unnecessarily divisive and - as I said - is a terrible way to win a general election.
Click to expand...

His beef is with her because she isn't a Corbyn lickspittle.

She is bloody annoying mind.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Your beef seems to mainly be with her having an (alleged) row with Diane Abbott, her willingness to talk to the media (maybe Abbott could learn a thing or two from her about how to handle these interviews?) and daring to have friends who are conservative MPs. Seems like a bit of a leap from all of that to discredit her political opinions. All of which is a great example of the Labour party eating itself from within.
Click to expand...
According to her, Jess abused Diane Abbott because she told her that she wasn't the only feminist in the Labour Party. That incident was enough for her to abuse her then, publicly wonder why more people didn't tell Diane Abbott similar things (check out how often that happens to occur now) and make sure to talk her down whenever given the chance, including saying she'd like to see her deselected when asked who she'd like to see kicked out of Labour, or 'discrediting her political opinions' as you put it. Pointing out that she isn't the only feminist in the Labour Party was the line when it came to Jess and Diane Abbott.

You've kindly highlighted her response to Rees-Mogg's well publicised views on abortion. Well, apart from just afterwards where they did a talk at the Cheltenham Literature Festival, which was still billed as...
"Everyone knows that opposites attract, but what does an Old Etonian, Conservative Brexiteer have in common with an outspoken, Brummie, feminist Remainer? Find out as they share anecdotes from their unlikely friendship across the green benches with The Timescolumnist Hugo Rifkind."
Click to expand...

Daring to call Jess 'not the only feminist in the Labour Party' is a step too far. Dining out with a group that advocate the repatriation of "non-indigenous" Britons, being anti-abortion in all cases or playing a part in one of the biggest national scandals in years and then lying about it? Get the guitar out and let's sing Kumbaya.
 
All politicians from all sides have friends that span the political divide. Its really only within hardline supporter factions where such infantile divisions exist.
 
Oscie said:
All politicians from all sides have friends that span the political divide. Its really only within hardline supporter factions where such infantile divisions exist.
Click to expand...
Thank goodness the public at large haven't been disenfranchised by politics, as they view the parties as all being the same, or this would seem like they might have a point.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
His beef is with her because she isn't a Corbyn lickspittle.

She is bloody annoying mind.
Click to expand...

I’m sure she is. And if she really is pals with Rees-Mogg then she also has terrible taste in friends. She can be both of these things and a decent politician, mind you.

I have friends who have radically different politics to me. On the right and on the left. As a mature (ish!) adult this isn’t a difficult or unusual thing to do. It all seems a bit schoolyard to decide who people are and aren’t allowed to have as friends and dismiss any politician who dares befriend the “wrong” people.
 
Dobba said:
Thank goodness the public at large haven't been disenfranchised by politics, as they view the parties as all being the same, or this would seem like they might have a point.
Click to expand...

What’s your take on “the public at large” having friends with different politics to them? Is that ok? Do we only crucify politicians who behave this way?

Asking for a friend.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
I’m sure she is. And if she really is pals with Rees-Mogg then she also has terrible taste in friends. She can be both of these things and a decent politician, mind you.

I have friends who have radically different politics to me. On the right and on the left. As a mature (ish!) adult this isn’t a difficult or unusual thing to do. It all seems a bit schoolyard to decide who people are and aren’t allowed to have as friends and dismiss any politician who dares befriend the “wrong” people.
Click to expand...

Reminds me of an interview I read with Tom Morello, he's a lifelong political activist on the socialist side of things but he counts Trump and gun nut Ted Nugent as a close friend.

“Ted Nugent’s a good friend to me. We have very similar views on freedom of speech,” Morello tells the Guardian. “His libertarian edge and my anarchist edge overlap considerably. Sometimes, if he says something outrageous that will fire up his racist base, I’ll text him to say, ‘Dude. What are you on about?’ We’re able to talk about it as friends as opposed to people on the opposite sides of the barricade.”
 
Pogue Mahone said:
What’s your take on “the public at large” having friends with different politics to them? Is that ok? Do we only crucify politicians who behave this way? Asking for a friend.
Click to expand...
I don't want my politicians laughing and joking with people who continue to vote on policies that makes peoples lives worse. I find it damages the impression that they give much of a shit, especially as their goal every 5 years should be to make them unemployed and completely ineffective in the years between.

If they want to make friends, join a local club or society in your own time. Or even easier, try meeting with the people they supposedly represent a little more often. You'd even get the benefit of having them canvassing for you when an election comes around.

Give me 100 Laura Pidcocks over 1 Jess Phillips.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
Reminds me of an interview I read with Tom Morello, he's a lifelong political activist on the socialist side of things but he counts Trump and gun nut Ted Nugent as a close friend.

“Ted Nugent’s a good friend to me. We have very similar views on freedom of speech,” Morello tells the Guardian. “His libertarian edge and my anarchist edge overlap considerably. Sometimes, if he says something outrageous that will fire up his racist base, I’ll text him to say, ‘Dude. What are you on about?’ We’re able to talk about it as friends as opposed to people on the opposite sides of the barricade.”
Click to expand...

Aye, if anything I’d say it’s healthy to have a diverse set of friends when the alternative is turning your real life into the same sort of echo chamber that’s made online discourse so toxic.

I’d draw the line at being friends with Donald fecking Trump, mind you!
 
Pogue Mahone said:
I’m sure she is. And if she really is pals with Rees-Mogg then she also has terrible taste in friends. She can be both of these things and a decent politician, mind you.

I have friends who have radically different politics to me. On the right and on the left. As a mature (ish!) adult this isn’t a difficult or unusual thing to do. It all seems a bit schoolyard to decide who people are and aren’t allowed to have as friends and dismiss any politician who dares befriend the “wrong” people.
Click to expand...


I'd go further and suggest that it is essential that our representatives like and respect each another (as much as that is possible) in order to foster compromise and cooperation. They should do what they can to find some common ground, even with the biggest cnuts, to try and get things done.
 
Grinner said:
I'd go further and suggest that it is essential that our representatives like and respect each another (as much as that is possible) in order to foster compromise and cooperation. They should do what they can to find some common ground, even with the biggest cnuts, to try and get things done.
Click to expand...
Do let me know when that starts happening.
 
Dobba said:
Do let me know when that starts happening.
Click to expand...

Already happened.

amcguiness_paisley_blair_ahern_northern_ireland_handshakes.jpg


Feels a long time ago, in the current toxic climate.
 
This 'compromise and co-operation' thing is what supposedly led the Lib Dems to agree to tighten benefit sanctions in exchange for a 5p charge on plastic bags.

I'll put it in stronger terms than I previously did - it's largely a middle class luxury where you get to be chummy with whoever you want whilst not worrying too much if they're pretty relaxed about poor people suffering.
 
DiseaseOfTheAge said:
This 'compromise and co-operation' thing is what supposedly led the Lib Dems to agree to tighten benefit sanctions in exchange for a 5p charge on plastic bags.

I'll put it in stronger terms than I previously did - it's largely a middle class luxury where you get to be chummy with whoever you want whilst not worrying too much if they're pretty relaxed about poor people suffering.
Click to expand...

See above...

If you want a more contemporary (and less Irish) example of the importance of cross-party cooperation then how about Brexit? That’s going to feck your country hard enough as it is; if the whole thing degenerates any further into party-political point scoring and parliament can’t find a way to work together then the outcome could be (even more) catastrophic.
 
Last edited:
I do think it's important politicians on either side of the divide are able to at least partly get along with each other, and for as much as Corbyn's a world away from the centrists of the party I'd assume he'll have plenty of Tories who he's on friendly terms with. Indeed, I've heard that in parliament you'll often see cases of politicians on completely opposite sides getting along well; often they already know their divisions and can air them publicly, whereas bad blood fosters between people within the same party because divisions are a lot more concealed and accentuate over time.

But I can see why people are pissed off here at Labour MP's defending Rudd. This isn't a case of a Tory minister standing down due to personal reasons, or ill-health, or because she's stood up valiantly against her party on an issue of principle. She's been forced to resign because she mislead parliament on an issue that has caused misery for a number of people who're in Britain just so that the very same minister can look slightly better to the public. And while the buck should ultimately stop with May at the very top, Rudd's got some culpability, and Labour MP's shouldn't be fawning over her on social media, irrespective of how decent she may come across behind the scenes. There's a time and a place for it, and as has been evidenced cooperation can often work wonders. But I'm not sure there's much need for defending/arguing in favour of a Tory minister who's resigned in disgrace here.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
See above...

If you want a more contemporary (and less Irish) example of the importance of cross-party cooperation then how about Brexit? That’s going to feck your country hard enough as it is; if the whole thing degenerates any further into party-political point scoring and parliament can’t find a way to work together then the outcome could be catastrophic.
Click to expand...
Do go on. I'd be interested to hear some specifics of how cross-party work will alleviate the worst dangers of brexit.
 
Seriously - I had to listen to Vivaldi's Spring for an hour and a half during various phone calls to the DWP this morning because they've fecked my benefits up and aren't paying me enough to live on.

You bourgeois co-operational centrists shall face the same when the time comes...
 
DiseaseOfTheAge said:
Seriously - I had to listen to Vivaldi's Spring for an hour and a half during various phone calls to the DWP this morning because they've fecked my benefits up and aren't paying me enough to live on.

You bourgeois co-operational centrists shall face the same when the time comes...
Click to expand...

If you didn't call us names and treat us with contempt I'd possibly send you a fiver and a sack of spuds.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
So it's Movementists vs Trotskyists vs Blairites vs any other factions I'm forgetting?
Click to expand...
There are a ton of factions in the Labour Party. From my limited knowledge(This is very a broad breakdown and shouldn't be taken that literally)

Right Wing

The Old Labour Right & Blue Labour

Sort of left-ish economics but with English nationalism. A view that the British working class are all old white northern miners who will only vote Labour if the party appeals to national identity(Loving the flag, singing the national anthem at full voice and of course racism and xenophobia). They view themselves as the ones who picked up the pieces when the party crashes.

Blairites(neoliberal)

There aren't actually the many in the party, it's mostly just the think tank/pressure group Progress(Richard angel) and a few MP's. They have very little power in the party and are constantly losing whatever power the have left. What they do have is good media connections.

The Centre

Centre Left & Right

The meh groups, who basically do whatever their told(You can see that with the failed coup and how they've now agreed to work with Corbyn). Their political are shaped by whoever else to leading the party but their fundamental idea is very similar to what you were saying earlier

''I always quite like it when politicians from the left speak up for politicians from the right and vice versa. It shows that they're capable of seeing beyond party political sniping and the habit that a lot of the electorate have formed of needing demonise everyone who doesn't share your politics. ''

They view politics as friendly jousting or as a sport. That's yes there will be arguments, winners and losers but in the end the fundamental structures stay the same.

Left Wing

Labour membership & Unions
It's too big make a statement on but it's clear they've moved politically to the left.

Momentum

A mix of activists/organisers/labour far left and people politicised during austerity. Their main goal is help bring in a left wing Corbyn led government.

Labour Far Left(The Labour leadership)

Anti racists Socialists(As in Capitalism is shite we can do better socialist) part of the Labour Party. Until recently it had never held any real power(I think the closet was Tony Benn leadership bid in the 80's). Their main idea is change the structures of the UK to be more democratic and socialist.

I don't blame people for not knowing the internal factions of the labour party(I'm sure I'm missing some out)as it's pretty boring but the Labour Party has to be looked at as different types of groups constantly working for their political ends and using any crisis to also further those ends.
 
JohnnyKills said:
This.

The pejorative 'Tory' taunts are tiresome to be honest. It's not as if all Tories are Nazis in disguise. Blair's as much to blame for this as anyone given the way he demonised the Tories under Major, but seriously, it adds nothing to the debate.

Replace the word 'Tory' with 'witch' and we could be back in Salem in the late 1600s.
Click to expand...
Witch Hunt! Is that you Donald?
 
DiseaseOfTheAge said:
So what should you be?
Click to expand...
Someone who doesn't try to oppose the elected party leader at every opportunity. The centrists went out of there way to undermine the leadership even going as far as calling votes of no confidence and putting up candidates to oust Corbyn. Now that it's obvious that it wont work they are all, how do we work together? The thing is the first sign of weakness and they'll be all over him like sharks in a feeding frenzy again.
 
Cheesy said:
I do think it's important politicians on either side of the divide are able to at least partly get along with each other, and for as much as Corbyn's a world away from the centrists of the party I'd assume he'll have plenty of Tories who he's on friendly terms with. Indeed, I've heard that in parliament you'll often see cases of politicians on completely opposite sides getting along well; often they already know their divisions and can air them publicly, whereas bad blood fosters between people within the same party because divisions are a lot more concealed and accentuate over time.

But I can see why people are pissed off here at Labour MP's defending Rudd. This isn't a case of a Tory minister standing down due to personal reasons, or ill-health, or because she's stood up valiantly against her party on an issue of principle. She's been forced to resign because she mislead parliament on an issue that has caused misery for a number of people who're in Britain just so that the very same minister can look slightly better to the public. And while the buck should ultimately stop with May at the very top, Rudd's got some culpability, and Labour MP's shouldn't be fawning over her on social media, irrespective of how decent she may come across behind the scenes. There's a time and a place for it, and as has been evidenced cooperation can often work wonders. But I'm not sure there's much need for defending/arguing in favour of a Tory minister who's resigned in disgrace here.
Click to expand...
I agree that Rudd's deception is completely unpalatable. But are woodock on the others actually defending her? In other words, are they supporting her on this specific issue?
 
JohnnyKills said:
I agree that Rudd's deception is completely unpalatable. But are woodock on the others actually defending her? In other words, are they supporting her on this specific issue?
Click to expand...

They're not openly defending her per se - they are nevertheless kind of singing her virtues at a time when she should be receiving widespread condemnation alongside her party.

And it's not even as if this is that bad for her, from a personal point of view. She's still a well-established MP who will be on a generous salary, who will no doubt be back on the front benches before long, and who's from a fairly rich background anyway and will be comfortably fine if she's unseated at the next election, provided she doesn't step down before that to avoid embarrassment.
 
2cents said:
Ah yeah, looks like he got me.
Click to expand...
Not sure about that either. On the one hand Angell's twitter features lots of (re)tweets favouring trans rights, anti-racism, protection of immigrants & refugees, criticizing anti-Islam populism, Trumpism and so on. On the other hand:
Sweet Square said:
Right Wing

(...)

Blairites(neoliberal)

There aren't actually the many in the party, it's mostly just the think tank/pressure group Progress(Richard angel) and a few MP's. They have very little power in the party and are constantly losing whatever power the have left. What they do have is good media connections.
Click to expand...
So who knows if the brackets thing got lumped together with that (over the Labour antisemitism row or whatever). So I'm still confused over that post, I'll just wait if there'll be an answer to my question.
 
Cheesy said:
Wenger's a lot like the Blairites to be fair - successful between 1997 and 2004 with an increasing downward spiral since then.
Click to expand...

If Wenger left in 2007 and they had three managers since then who hadn't won a thing, sure.
 
Synco said:
Not sure about that either. On the one hand Angell's twitter features lots of (re)tweets favouring trans rights, anti-racism, protection of immigrants & refugees, criticizing anti-Islam populism, Trumpism and so on. On the other hand:

So who knows if the brackets thing got lumped together with that (over the Labour antisemitism row or whatever). So I'm still confused over that post, I'll just wait if there'll be an answer to my question.
Click to expand...
Why are you quoting me ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.