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

[Virgil]

We definitely get very different history books in Ireland.

Of course you do and no reason why not. Much the same as the history books of the UK look on Ireland unsympathetically. After all Eire as a neutral would have been quite happy for Germany to have been victorious in WW2. That is the trouble with entrenched positions on all sides sadly.

 

[Virgil]

Decimating all industry in an area and providing nothing (other than disdain) to compensate for the loss of jobs is going over and above doing “what had to be done”.

As I said. The way she went about it was shameful .....however necessary. Good post

 

[2cents]

After all Eire as a neutral would have been quite happy for Germany to have been victorious in WW2

No. We were ‘neutral’ in favor of the allies.

 

[Virgil]

No. We were ‘neutral’ in favor of the allies.

Surely the key word is 'neutral' or am I missing something? Mind you with the echo chamber that social media is it would not be surprising if I was missing a key point.

 

[711]

and lets be honest bolsover, ashfield, mansfield... you wouldn't have found many more anti thatcher places ... large ex mining communities with a real hatred of thatcher - but over the 30 years or more since the miners strikes the demographics have changed and whislt you will find plenty of people in those areas who hate thatcher and hate the conservatives (probably in that order) you also now have 3 conservative MP's representing those areas ... labour cant survive simply on thatcher hatred (the demographics wont allow it) ... corbyn certainly wasnt the solution - an absolutly toxic brand up in this part of the world (even more so than thatcher id say)

Well you've moved the conversation on from how evil Thatcher was a considerable time ago, which she was, to whether Labour currently represents the people of today. We got the answer to that on thursday I'd have thought. That won't change until the left activists stop blaming everyone and everything else and develop at least some sense of how others see them.

 

[berbatrick]

Simon Wiesenthal Center disclosed its annual top ten list of the worst outbreaks of antisemitic and anti-Israel incidents, including lethal Jew-hatred in the US and Germany.

Wiesenthal announced that the now-defeated British Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn was ranked number one for mainstream antisemitism in the UK. The Center wrote that it ”released its #1 choice for its Top Ten 2019 list five days before the UK election. Corbyn’s Labour was trounced by PM Boris Johnson’s Conservative Party in the December 12th elections. Some analysts say that antisemitism impacted the voters. Corbyn has resigned as leader of the Labour Party.”


In fact, Corbyn termed the antisemitic jihadi organizations Hezbollah and Hamas his “friends.”

The Center listed the lethal antisemitic attacks in Jersey City and in Halle, Germany as the next worst outbreaks of Jew-hatred. [...] “Anderson had expressed anti-police and antisemitic sentiments. The shooters first killed a police officer, then unleashed a barrage of gunfire killing three innocent people inside the kosher store. Only quick and heroic action taken by police prevented an even greater massacre, as an adjacent yeshiva [school] would have been their next target,” wrote the Center.

Wiesenthal wrote that “some 80 Jews praying in a German Synagogue on Yom Kippur – Judaism’s holiest day – miraculously escaped certain injury or death at the hands of a neo-Nazi when the attacker failed to break down a security door outside a synagogue in Halle, Germany. Balliet admitted that he was motivated by his hatred of Jews.”

The entry also listed the San Diego gunman who “opened fire on Jews at prayer inside a Chabad synagogue in San Diego County, killing 60-year-old Lori Gilbert-Kaye, and wounding the rabbi.” The shooter announced that he was “defending our nation against the Jewish people, who are trying to destroy all white people.”

The third spot went to the antisemitic death threats targeting the “Eighty-nine year-old Auschwitz survivor Liliana Segre, who serves as Senator for Life in the Italian Parliament.” [...]

As number four on the Center’s list, French prosecutors were cited for “dropping murder charges against Kobili Traore, who mercilessly beat Sarah Halimi, a Jewish kindergarten teacher, and then threw her off her balcony. [...]

American Muslim Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib, America’s first Congresswoman of Palestinian descent, and IIhan Omar, a Muslim Congresswoman, earned spot number five for their “slander of Israel and Jews.”

https://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Wiesenthal-releases-ten-worst-outbreaks-of-antisemiticanti-Israel-cases-6113

 

[berbatrick]

 

[Sweet Square]

 

[esmufc07]

Do these count as smears?

 

[Sweet Square]

Thread of the void

 

[berbatrick]

There's been a lot of talk about a lack of ventilators and of local manufacturing capacity generally in response to the virus - the pitfalls of having so much manufacturing outsourced. I've also seen an article posted here about a 3D printing solution to the ventialtor problem.

Here is an article written by a McDonnell advisor in September 2019.

De-Deindustrialisation
ByJames Meadway
After decades of deindustrialisation, the next Labour government can reboot the areas left behind  - by laying foundations for a digital industrial revolution.

The 1st paragraph:

If you want to see the future, head to New York’s Fordham Road Metro station, right in the heart of the Bronx, and walk round the block to Morris Avenue. There, in the back rooms of a Lutheran church, the Bronx Innovation Factory has community-owned and operated 3D printers, laser engravers, and a robot milling machine. Inside, training programmes are in full-swing and locals with a bright idea can turn it into prototyped and 3D-printed reality.

The Bronx is the poorest county in New York, with nearly a third of its residents living in poverty, and one of the poorest counties in the whole of the US. It’s not the first place you might think of when you hear the term ‘advanced manufacturing,’ but that’s the vision behind the Innovation Factory: that changes in technology can place the means of production back into the hands of places that have too long been treated as bywords for economic decline.

But there is something more subtle, too. We’re all faced with a world that seems dangerously out of our control. Those in charge often do not know what they are doing, as the global financial crisis demonstrated, and care little for the rest of us if they do, as austerity showed. Climate change is already disrupting our lives. Fairbourne, on the North Wales coast, is the first place in the country to be evacuated due to climate change, the local council claiming it can no longer afford to provide protection against rising sea levels. Every year, wildfires spread across peat moors and floods threaten lowland areas.

Decisions are taken about our economy with little reference to how we actually live, from the disappearance of high street chains to the closure of car plants. And then at work itself, with the erosion of trade union rights, the spread of insecure work, and the growth of electronic monitoring, we are subject to the whims the labour market and corporate hierarchies. Alienation is the dominant feature of the society in which we live.

It’s little wonder the demand to ‘take back control’ resonated with so many in the summer of 2016. That’s why economic democracy and decentralisation is the most important part of Labour’s new approach to economic policy. By giving ownership over productive assets back to the people who work with them, and the people who should benefit from them, we are reasserting a fundamental right over the economy and how it operates.

Two developments are opening up this possibility. The first is the growth of what gets called ‘distributed manufacturing.’ Distinct from the older model of manufacturing, where one large factory would churn out standardised goods for consumers a long way off, distributed manufacturing relies on far smaller plants that can churn out customised products, close to their markets.

3D printing is the most obvious technology associated with this. Costs have plummeted, with viable 3 printers available for as little as $49, but at the same time their quality and sophistication has improved. Already, there are companies across the country offering access to the smaller-scale production 3D printing can provide, and future advances could include the personalisation of medicine, including even the 3D printing of replacement human organs. But the rise of the ‘maker’ movement demonstrates another, less sci-fi version of the same process — shared spaces, like Building BloQs in north London, that provide cheap, shared access to machine tools, allowing economically viable production to take place on a far smaller scale than previously seemed possible.

To call this prescient would be an understatement. This one random guy that the disgraced leadership picked as an adviser has done better than the magic of the market, and honestly this article combined with the coronavirus crisis validates my worldview so much I won't be able to resist re-posting it forever.

 

[PedroMendez]

There's been a lot of talk about a lack of ventilators and of local manufacturing capacity generally in response to the virus - the pitfalls of having so much manufacturing outsourced. I've also seen an article posted here about a 3D printing solution to the ventialtor problem.

Here is an article written by a McDonnell advisor in September 2019.

De-Deindustrialisation
ByJames Meadway
After decades of deindustrialisation, the next Labour government can reboot the areas left behind  - by laying foundations for a digital industrial revolution.

The 1st paragraph:








To call this prescient would be an understatement. This one random guy that the disgraced leadership picked as an adviser has done better than the magic of the market, and honestly this article combined with the coronavirus crisis validates my worldview so much I won't be able to resist re-posting it forever.

I don't understand the connection between outsourcing of manufacturing, the current crisis and 3d-printing.

 

[Sweet Square]

 

[berbatrick]

I don't understand the connection between outsourcing of manufacturing, the current crisis and 3d-printing.

Current crisis and 3D: https://www.3dnatives.com/en/3d-printed-respirator-230320205/

Outsourcing and crisis: inability/unwillingnes to quickly ramp up domestic production of ventilators

3D and outsourcing: a form of manufacturing with less capital and labour requirements, it is suited to small work-spaces using a highly educated workforce and would thus (with the correct investment) be viable in the west.

 

[Drifter]

They'll be re-nationalising trains next.

 

[Flying high]

What a tool.

All this AS, anti UK, support for IRA stuff was bullshit cooked up by the right wing media. The same can, and will be done to the next left-leaning Labour leader. That so many of you in here lapped it up is totally shameful.

 

[nickm]

What a tool.

All this AS, anti UK, support for IRA stuff was bullshit cooked up by the right wing media.

There is no way the UK electorate was going to elect Corbyn. You (as in this currently dominant part of labour) were told this again and again, including by your own MPs, ie the people most exposed to the electorate - who you decided to attack and marginalise instead. The whole history of the last few years of labour is a refusal to listen to anyone outside the Corbyn echo chamber. A better candidate and a better operation would have resulted in a better result but you were - and remain - too deaf to hear that. People like you lost this election for Labour.

The same can, and will be done to the next left-leaning Labour leader. That so many of you in here lapped it up is totally shameful.

Maybe. Perhaps Labour will get smart enough to elect a leader who doesn't offer so many easy targets to its enemies, and followers strong enough to have real debates rather than pointless ideological purity contests.

 

[Flying high]

There is no way the UK electorate was going to elect Corbyn. You (as in this currently dominant part of labour) were told this again and again, including by your own MPs, ie the people most exposed to the electorate - who you decided to attack and marginalise instead. The whole history of the last few years of labour is a refusal to listen to anyone outside the Corbyn echo chamber. A better candidate and a better operation would have resulted in a better result but you were - and remain - too deaf to hear that. People like you lost this election for Labour.



Maybe. Perhaps Labour will get smart enough to elect a leader who doesn't offer so many easy targets to its enemies, and followers strong enough to have real debates rather than pointless ideological purity contests.

The attacking and marginalising started immediately from the so called centrists. Stop trying to rewrite history. People like you lost the elections for all of us.

Corbyn is not some crazed idealogue as you seem to want to paint him. He is a considerate, thoughtful man who would have been a huge improvement upon the callous tories.

He is not a great orator. His demeanor, especially toward the legions of the press who kept attacking him, could certainly have been better. But why was he really being attacked? It was purely because he would have, at least in some small measure, done what the majority of people in this country actually want: Disrupt the never ending drain of money/resources and rights from the many to the few. Corbyn kept on talking about the issues which matter to the people of this country, in a mostly calm and extremely determined manner. But was attacked mercilessly, enabled in large part by the fact that half of his own party were briefing against him from the bloody start. If, as some claim, they were merely 'concerned about electability', how do you explain them still causing trouble after seeing Labour becoming the largest party in europe by membership? Or when increasing the vote share from 30 to 40% in 2017? It's almost as though the centrists were the idealogues who were prepared to take the whole ship down rather than cede power within the party. They simply couldn't put aside their personal preferences and help improve the operation(as you put it) or take some pressure from the candidate.

To say we were too deaf to hear it is also clearly bollocks. We know what we are up against. And, speaking personally, I would have prefered him to have stood down before the election to prevent the tories from winning, because by that time, yes he was too damaged. It was never for me 'Corbyn or bust' but the politics which he espouses are exactly what this country needs and must be fought for against the prevailing narrative. Whoever can deliver that will get my support. Another Ed Milliband type(apologetically left wing) will not get my support...even if they might get my vote.

But make no mistake, this has all been a stitch up and you bought it. For every weakness Corbyn and Labour has, Johnson and the tories have more. The difference has been the press and powerful lobby groups. That's it.

 

[Kentonio]

The attacking and marginalising started immediately from the so called centrists. Stop trying to rewrite history. People like you lost the elections for all of us.

Corbyn is not some crazed idealogue as you seem to want to paint him. He is a considerate, thoughtful man who would have been a huge improvement upon the callous tories.

He is not a great orator. His demeanor, especially toward the legions of the press who kept attacking him, could certainly have been better. But why was he really being attacked? It was purely because he would have, at least in some small measure, done what the majority of people in this country actually want: Disrupt the never ending drain of money/resources and rights from the many to the few. Corbyn kept on talking about the issues which matter to the people of this country, in a mostly calm and extremely determined manner. But was attacked mercilessly, enabled in large part by the fact that half of his own party were briefing against him from the bloody start. If, as some claim, they were merely 'concerned about electability', how do you explain them still causing trouble after seeing Labour becoming the largest party in europe by membership? Or when increasing the vote share from 30 to 40% in 2017? It's almost as though the centrists were the idealogues who were prepared to take the whole ship down rather than cede power within the party. They simply couldn't put aside their personal preferences and help improve the operation(as you put it) or take some pressure from the candidate.

To say we were too deaf to hear it is also clearly bollocks. We know what we are up against. And, speaking personally, I would have prefered him to have stood down before the election to prevent the tories from winning, because by that time, yes he was too damaged. It was never for me 'Corbyn or bust' but the politics which he espouses are exactly what this country needs and must be fought for against the prevailing narrative. Whoever can deliver that will get my support. Another Ed Milliband type(apologetically left wing) will not get my support...even if they might get my vote.

But make no mistake, this has all been a stitch up and you bought it. For every weakness Corbyn and Labour has, Johnson and the tories have more. The difference has been the press and powerful lobby groups. That's it.

You remind me of the Democrats with Hillary Clinton. Many of us were pleading with them not to elect someone who offered so many obvious targets, but they insisted that because many of the attacks weren't justified that they should be ignored. That's not how the world works. It doesn't matter that Corbyn didn't support the IRA and middle eastern terrorists, it doesn't matter that no he didn't want to turn Britain into a Marxist state, it doesn't matter that he's a thoughtful and considerate man. What matters is that his past and the fact he's not a great orator made it so those attacks could be thrown at him constantly and they were always going to stick. Even setting aside what a fecking mess he made over anti-semitism and Brexit, he was never going to be elected anyway because politics is a dark act, and he was just carrying too much baggage.

Now you can either accept that and learn from it and maybe win next time, or just shout how unfair it is and repeat the last election.

 

[nickm]

The attacking and marginalising started immediately from the so called centrists. Stop trying to rewrite history. People like you lost the elections for all of us.

The attacks started because the "centrists" (let's instead call them moderates) knew, from bitter experience, what happens to Labour's electability when they swing too far to the left. And they were right.

Corbyn is not some crazed idealogue as you seem to want to paint him. He is a considerate, thoughtful man who would have been a huge improvement upon the callous tories.

He is not a great orator. His demeanor, especially toward the legions of the press who kept attacking him, could certainly have been better. But why was he really being attacked? It was purely because he would have, at least in some small measure, done what the majority of people in this country actually want: Disrupt the never ending drain of money/resources and rights from the many to the few. Corbyn kept on talking about the issues which matter to the people of this country, in a mostly calm and extremely determined manner. But was attacked mercilessly, enabled in large part by the fact that half of his own party were briefing against him from the bloody start.

It may well be that Corbyn was attacked partly because his policies worried some vested interests. But it's also the case he was attacked because he was easy to attack.

If, as some claim, they were merely 'concerned about electability', how do you explain them still causing trouble after seeing Labour becoming the largest party in europe by membership? Or when increasing the vote share from 30 to 40% in 2017? It's almost as though the centrists were the idealogues who were prepared to take the whole ship down rather than cede power within the party. They simply couldn't put aside their personal preferences and help improve the operation(as you put it) or take some pressure from the candidate.

Ah yes, the totemic 'increasing vote share'. You completely took the wrong lessons from that loss. Instead of asking why you fell short, you asked how can we double down. You doubled down on what turned out to be, on a longer timescale, a losing strategy.

But make no mistake, this has all been a stitch up and you bought it. For every weakness Corbyn and Labour has, Johnson and the tories have more. The difference has been the press and powerful lobby groups. That's it.

Which "powerful lobby group" is that then? Go on say what you mean.

Pathetic.

 

[Flying high]

You remind me of the Democrats with Hillary Clinton. Many of us were pleading with them not to elect someone who offered so many obvious targets, but they insisted that because many of the attacks weren't justified that they should be ignored. That's not how the world works. It doesn't matter that Corbyn didn't support the IRA and middle eastern terrorists, it doesn't matter that no he didn't want to turn Britain into a Marxist state, it doesn't matter that he's a thoughtful and considerate man. What matters is that his past and the fact he's not a great orator made it so those attacks could be thrown at him constantly and they were always going to stick. Even setting aside what a fecking mess he made over anti-semitism and Brexit, he was never going to be elected anyway because politics is a dark act, and he was just carrying too much baggage.

Now you can either accept that and learn from it and maybe win next time, or just shout how unfair it is and repeat the last election.

But that's the point though. They can make up all this bullshit and keep ramming it down peoples throats to the point that enough of the electorate can come to the conclusion that he is, as they keep being told, unelectable.

So the right wing press literally get to choose the labour leader and you're fine with that? No point fighting it, just jump on board and embrace the race to the bottom?

 

[Kentonio]

But that's the point though. They can make up all this bullshit and keep ramming it down peoples throats to the point that enough of the electorate can come to the conclusion that he is, as they keep being told, unelectable.

So the right wing press literally get to choose the labour leader and you're fine with that? No point fighting it, just jump on board and embrace the race to the bottom?

It’s not about being ok with it, it’s about accepting that a certain level of ratfecking is definitely going to happen and preparing yourself accordingly. Does that mean letting the right wing press select your leader? No. But it does mean realizing that selecting a guy who comes with a ton of easily twisted baggage and a lack of skills to give his own side probably isn’t the best approach to take. You don’t have to accept the bottom but you might have to also accept you can’t just get your top choice either.

 

[Foxbatt]

It’s not about being ok with it, it’s about accepting that a certain level of ratfecking is definitely going to happen and preparing yourself accordingly. Does that mean letting the right wing press select your leader? No. But it does mean realizing that selecting a guy who comes with a ton of easily twisted baggage and a lack of skills to give his own side probably isn’t the best approach to take. You don’t have to accept the bottom but you might have to also accept you can’t just get your top choice either.

With Corbyn the issue was much bigger. It was not the right wing press that was the obvious problem. But right wing members of his own party undermining him and stabbing him in the back.
To make matters worse he is no orator so he had a difficult time in getting his message across and defending himself. Honest good hearted people have no chance of getting elected to the top post. Look at the USA. The Democrats are electing a corrupt guy who changed the prosecutor of a foreign country because he was investigating a company that his son was on the board. He withheld aid until the prosecutor got sacked.
As for POTUS the less said the better.

 

[ZupZup]

Even setting aside what a fecking mess he made over anti-semitism and Brexit, he was never going to be elected anyway because politics is a dark act, and he was just carrying too much baggage.

I actually don't think he had a lot of baggage for someone who has been in politics as long as he has... the media in large part create the baggage. If he had so much baggage, why are the press twisting old stories and hammering him on things he did twenty or thirty years ago? It's the lack of content and why half of the stuff thrown at him was fairly laughable. They will pick an angle... any they can get to stick really, and attack it relentlessly.

Anybody with similar politics would get exactly the same because they will find angles to go at. It will then be the same excuse again - "they had too much baggage".

 

[Flying high]

The attacks started because the "centrists" (let's instead call them moderates) knew, from bitter experience, what happens to Labour's electability when they swing too far to the left. And they were right.

So it was a pre-emptive strike, which ended up being self-fulfilling. Convenient.

It may well be that Corbyn was attacked partly because his policies worried some vested interests. But it's also the case he was attacked because he was easy to attack.

This is pretty meaningless really. He simply would not have suffered the same level of attacks from nearly all sides had he been more prepared to kowtow to those with money.

Ah yes, the totemic 'increasing vote share'. You completely took the wrong lessons from that loss. Instead of asking why you fell short, you asked how can we double down. You doubled down on what turned out to be, on a longer timescale, a losing strategy.

When you, as a party, elect a leader on the basis that he believes in what he is saying and has the principles to follow through, then for him to drop those ideas simply because the centre moved to the right is to yet again abandon the left. Why when there is clearly(check polling) such support for those policies? Because he's wrongly been painted as an evil commie who hates the UK.

Which "powerful lobby group" is that then? Go on say what you mean.

Pathetic.

I find this funny. I know what group YOU mean, but I was actually talking primarily about the right wing lobby groups who seemed to inject a spokesperson into nearly every news broadcast from 2016 up to the last election. But go ahead, assume I'm so paranoid and concerned about Jewish lobby groups that I am only talking about them and hiding behind inference. No, if I thought they were the major reason I would have listed them specifically. Not every leftist is against Jews you know? In fact, I know none that are. You're still buying the agenda.

 

[Kentonio]

With Corbyn the issue was much bigger. It was not the right wing press that was the obvious problem. But right wing members of his own party undermining him and stabbing him in the back.
To make matters worse he is no orator so he had a difficult time in getting his message across and defending himself. Honest good hearted people have no chance of getting elected to the top post. Look at the USA. The Democrats are electing a corrupt guy who changed the prosecutor of a foreign country because he was investigating a company that his son was on the board. He withheld aid until the prosecutor got sacked.
As for POTUS the less said the better.

I agree with the overall point about good hearted people not being elected, but that Biden stuff isn’t accurate. That was just the US right wing press and Trump lying their asses off to try and damage Biden before the election. Which makes you wonder why they bothered really, considering all the true shit he already has against him.

 

[Kentonio]

I actually don't think he had a lot of baggage for someone who has been in politics as long as he has... the media in large part create the baggage. If he had so much baggage, why are the press twisting old stories and hammering him on things he did twenty or thirty years ago? It's the lack of content and why half of the stuff thrown at him was fairly laughable. They will pick an angle... any they can get to stick really, and attack it relentlessly.

Anybody with similar politics would get exactly the same because they will find angles to go at. It will then be the same excuse again - "they had too much baggage".

The pics with Hamas leaders, the IRA stuff, the old Marxist stuff, it all just made it far too easy for the Tories to conjure up dark images of a return to the 70’s. Much harder if it was a younger, fresher face.

 

[ZupZup]

The pics with Hamas leaders, the IRA stuff, the old Marxist stuff, it all just made it far too easy for the Tories to conjure up dark images of a return to the 70’s. Much harder if it was a younger, fresher face.

You think it would be much harder because you've listened to the media shout "IRA", "commie" and "antisemitism" relentlessly for years like a broken record. We're talking stuff from many years ago as well most of the time.

For instance. The amount of baggage/material Corbyn has to work with compared to Boris? It's not even close and Corbyn has been in politics a lot longer. I am not saying Corbyn didn't have things that could be twisted, but you can easily see early signs in the media of what RLB would be subjected to. What real baggage does she have? She shouldn't really have any but a year or two of her leadership and I reckon you'd think she had more baggage than an airport carousel.

 

[Foxbatt]

I agree with the overall point about good hearted people not being elected, but that Biden stuff isn’t accurate. That was just the US right wing press and Trump lying their asses off to try and damage Biden before the election. Which makes you wonder why they bothered really, considering all the true shit he already has against him.

I am afraid you are wrong on this. This story has been around since it happened. People who knows the region will agree with me. The company named was very close to the now deposed ex President. So when the maidan happened the owner was investigated by the new government. As with most business in the region they are corrupt so they got Hunter Biden on the Board. But the new prosecutor didn't stop the investigation. Joe Biden forced the Ukrainian government to sack him. It's on video record of Joe Biden saying that.

It's obvious that Trump is going to pick it up on it. There's no two words about Biden forcing Ukraine to sack the prosecutor.

 

[nickm]

From the above: "Any criticism of the leadership was the fault of the mainstream media. The print media has always held an anti-Labour bent, but has never stopped the election of Labour governments in the past. The lesson is: if you believe the press is not your natural ally, don’t make it easy for them. If you don’t want the press to write you are a terrorist sympathiser, don’t lay a wreath at the grave of a terrorist. If you don’t want the press to write you are a friend of Hamas or Hezbollah, don’t call them your friends. If you don’t want the press to write you associate with the IRA, don’t associate with the IRA. If you don’t want the press to doubt your patriotism, don’t give Russia the benefit of the doubt over the Salisbury poisonings or take money from Iranian state media. If you want the press to highlight your aversion to antisemitism, don’t share a platform with known anti-Semites and defend antisemitic murals.

"Only Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters can do all these things and think they can get away with them. They believe they are the most morally centred, so stand rigid in their certainty. They believe they are the most principled, so they occupy the highest of ground. The truth is that they are not virtuous, nor moral nor principled. They are vain, self-centred and narcissistic."

 

[nickm]

You think it would be much harder because you've listened to the media shout "IRA", "commie" and "antisemitism" relentlessly for years like a broken record. We're talking stuff from many years ago as well most of the time.

Corbyn DID have questions to answer on his IRA connections, and his ideological support of Sinn Fein when their military wing was murdering people in the 80s.
He DID have questions to answer about his connections to some truly vile middle east terrorists and his claims to be an honest broker.
He DID have questions to answer about how antisemitism took root in his party, given the EHRC is investigating the organisation he led/leads.

Plenty of people have long memories and don't forgive some of this stuff easily.

This isn't all made up by the press to damage him. Plenty of this was him properly being held to account over his past and present positions, given he wanted to be PM.

 

[nickm]

When you, as a party, elect a leader on the basis that he believes in what he is saying and has the principles to follow through, then for him to drop those ideas simply because the centre moved to the right is to yet again abandon the left. Why when there is clearly(check polling) such support for those policies? Because he's wrongly been painted as an evil commie who hates the UK.

"It was a normal Labour defeat and therefore seen as a victory.... Corbyn brought a worldview alien to the Labour Party. A worldview that belonged on the fringes. With his victory, that worldview became centre stage and all those who lived on the fringes with him found their home centre stage too. The pseudo-Marxists, Bennites, anti-Semites and cultists all thought it was their turn to run Labour. "

 

[Kentonio]

I am afraid you are wrong on this. This story has been around since it happened. People who knows the region will agree with me. The company named was very close to the now deposed ex President. So when the maidan happened the owner was investigated by the new government. As with most business in the region they are corrupt so they got Hunter Biden on the Board. But the new prosecutor didn't stop the investigation. Joe Biden forced the Ukrainian government to sack him. It's on video record of Joe Biden saying that.

It's obvious that Trump is going to pick it up on it. There's no two words about Biden forcing Ukraine to sack the prosecutor.

You should go back and read the investigative reporting from before Trump made it a thing. It had nothing to do with Biden wanting to help his son, the prosecutor he got fired was corrupt as hell and it was a combination of the UK, EU, Obama administration and the world bank who all wanted him gone because he wasn’t actually investigating any corruption, he was protecting pro-Russian business owners. It was in no way Biden’s policy, he was carrying out Obama’s policy with full support from the other western democracies.

 

[Flying high]

It’s not about being ok with it, it’s about accepting that a certain level of ratfecking is definitely going to happen and preparing yourself accordingly. Does that mean letting the right wing press select your leader? No. But it does mean realizing that selecting a guy who comes with a ton of easily twisted baggage and a lack of skills to give his own side probably isn’t the best approach to take. You don’t have to accept the bottom but you might have to also accept you can’t just get your top choice either.

Look I get that angle. But it's the 'easily twisted baggage' bit that we will simply never get over.

Corbyn could very easily been painted by the media as a peace loving, kind, honourable leader, who has a long history of bringing people together to talk in difficult times. For standing up for those in need. That would have been much more representative of his political career. We all knew that wasn't going to be the case before his name was even mentioned though, right?

I would love a really personable Labour leader to come along, with great charisma AND a genuine record of supporting good causes and shunning those who seek to buy influence, who has never said a thing that can be twisted to hammer home a narrative. Since that isn't going to happen, we have a choice, vote for the politics you like, or for those the media like. You can say that it's better to have the Blair years than more of the tories, to which I would agree to an extent. However, after new Labour, come the tories, not a more left wing government. Because reality says we only have 2 parties and it's their turn next. If Labour spend their term basically doing what the other side does, just with a shade less extremism, then as I said, we are simply continuing the race to the bottom.

If Starmer(or whoever) is not conceived of as being a threat to the status quo, he will not receive the full Corbyn treatment. As soon as he is, he will.

Should a prospective Labour leader hide any lefty intentions to get elected? Be more like Milliband?

 

[Foxbatt]

You should go back and read the investigative reporting from before Trump made it a thing. It had nothing to do with Biden wanting to help his son, the prosecutor he got fired was corrupt as hell and it was a combination of the UK, EU, Obama administration and the world bank who all wanted him gone because he wasn’t actually investigating any corruption, he was protecting pro-Russian business owners. It was in no way Biden’s policy, he was carrying out Obama’s policy with full support from the other western democracies.

I have. It's nothing new to me. I am neither British nor American nor Russian. The fact is the pro Russian company hired Hunter Biden. This is nothing new especially in that part of the world.
You should look at non western reports. This has got nothing to do with the Russian government or Trump. As for Obama's policy do you think he is bothered by such a small issue of sacking a prosecutor in such a country?
This story has been around the region and Ukraine long before Trump even became President. This has got nothing to do with Trump originally. It's only now the American newspapers have seen this or started talking about it. But it's a fact that Biden and the Americans forced the Ukrainian government to sack him or they will not give them the aid. It's on video record for Biden for saying that. I have seen it myself.

 

[Grinner]

Why are you all redoing the Corbyn thing? Didn't he lose and resign already?

 

[Kentonio]

I have. It's nothing new to me. I am neither British nor American nor Russian. The fact is the pro Russian company hired Hunter Biden. This is nothing new especially in that part of the world.
You should look at non western reports. This has got nothing to do with the Russian government or Trump. As for Obama's policy do you think he is bothered by such a small issue of sacking a prosecutor in such a country?
This story has been around the region and Ukraine long before Trump even became President. This has got nothing to do with Trump originally. It's only now the American newspapers have seen this or started talking about it. But it's a fact that Biden and the Americans forced the Ukrainian government to sack him or they will not give them the aid. It's on video record for Biden for saying that. I have seen it myself.

I did look at non-western reports, including Ukrainian ones. Yes Hunter Biden getting hired was clearly the company wanting to trade on his fathers name, but that doesn’t mean that Biden got the prosecutor fired to protect his son. It wasn’t Biden’s choice, he wasn’t the one who started the whole thing (that was the U.K.) and as VP he didn’t have the authority to set US policy alone. Yes it was America who forced the firing, and rightly so as the prosecutor was corrupt as hell as Ukranians are well aware.

 

[Flying high]

From the above: "Any criticism of the leadership was the fault of the mainstream media. The print media has always held an anti-Labour bent, but has never stopped the election of Labour governments in the past. The lesson is: if you believe the press is not your natural ally, don’t make it easy for them. If you don’t want the press to write you are a terrorist sympathiser, don’t lay a wreath at the grave of a terrorist. If you don’t want the press to write you are a friend of Hamas or Hezbollah, don’t call them your friends. If you don’t want the press to write you associate with the IRA, don’t associate with the IRA. If you don’t want the press to doubt your patriotism, don’t give Russia the benefit of the doubt over the Salisbury poisonings or take money from Iranian state media. If you want the press to highlight your aversion to antisemitism, don’t share a platform with known anti-Semites and defend antisemitic murals.

"Only Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters can do all these things and think they can get away with them. They believe they are the most morally centred, so stand rigid in their certainty. They believe they are the most principled, so they occupy the highest of ground. The truth is that they are not virtuous, nor moral nor principled. They are vain, self-centred and narcissistic."

It's the same old stuff we've heard a 1000 times before. Amounting to a few badly chosen comments, some obvious exaggerations and some complete lies. What politician would not have such a list? Johnson certainly does.

 

[BobbyManc]

"It was a normal Labour defeat and therefore seen as a victory.... Corbyn brought a worldview alien to the Labour Party. A worldview that belonged on the fringes. With his victory, that worldview became centre stage and all those who lived on the fringes with him found their home centre stage too. The pseudo-Marxists, Bennites, anti-Semites and cultists all thought it was their turn to run Labour. "

You've posted the article as if it says anything insightful, but I've had a read through and can't find anything other than the embittered laments of an MP who lost his seat and has a loose connection with reality. It's the equivalent of a Corbynista article just blaming the media and "Blairites" for its defeat. Minimal insight, half-hearted analysis, plenty of anecdotes but no attempts to grapple with facts, statistics or evidence. I mean, just to highlight one blatant mistruth, which the author must surely be aware of: he suggests Labour voted for the election in 2019 out of hubris - but, the SNP and Lib Dems made the first move by declaring that they backed an election. Thus, the election was going to happen even if Labour whipped all MPs against it. But yes, let's pretend that the Labour leadership arrogantly forced an election because they deluded themselves that they'd win because that ties in with the author's agenda, even if its demonstrably false.

As another example, let's look at the author's own seat.

2010 = 18k votes, 45.1% vote share.
2015 = 18k votes, 47.2% vote share.
2017 = 22k votes, 53.4% vote share.
2019 = 15k votes, 36.3% vote share.

So in his article, essentially 2019 result = bad because of Corbyn, 2017 result = good but in spite of Corbyn. If you want to push that narrative, you're going to need more than rhetoric and bluster. Nothing about how in Sedgefield, UKIP went from winning 1.9% of the vote in 2007 to 16.6% in 2015? Nothing about the wisdom of his own decision to call for a second referendum in a seat where almost 60% voted Leave? But such things can't be blamed on Corbyn, so instead he continues to propagate the intellectually lazy idea that it was almost entirely Corbyn's leadership that plunged Labour to a terrible defeat in 2019; meanwhile, the biggest increase in vote share since Attlee in 1945 can only be apparently explained by a poor Tory campaign?

If anybody wants to actually try and read a good analysis and attempts to explain Labour's electoral performances in recent years, Lewis Goodall's Left for Dead is a good book on the matter. It was published slightly prior to the 2019 election but it did quite presciently predict that seats such as Sedgefield could be lost, and it actually makes an attempt to get to grips with why Labour exceeded expectations in 2017 which does partially credit Corbyn, but also argues why Corbyn could oversee and be partially blamed for such a result as happened in 2019.

 

[ZupZup]

Corbyn DID have questions to answer on his IRA connections, and his ideological support of Sinn Fein when their military wing was murdering people in the 80s.
He DID have questions to answer about his connections to some truly vile middle east terrorists and his claims to be an honest broker.
He DID have questions to answer about how antisemitism took root in his party, given the EHRC is investigating the organisation he led/leads.

Plenty of people have long memories and don't forgive some of this stuff easily.

This isn't all made up by the press to damage him. Plenty of this was him properly being held to account over his past and present positions, given he wanted to be PM.

Has questions to answer? Answers you and the predominantly right wing media don't want anyway. You just want him to be portrayed in the worst light possible because it suits the narrative for your own political views..