Jump to content

When will this shit end?


Recommended Posts

I consider myself to be a hard left Labour supporter who voted Corbyn for leader twice. I voted Starmer earlier this year, purely because I thought he had most chance of winning an election.

Does he share all my core values? No, but do I want us to be in opposition for the rest of my life? Definitely not. Sometimes you have to compromise. If the last election taught us anything, it's that this country won't vote for a hard left government.

If it's a choice between a softer left Labour government or endless years of Tory bastards, I know which side I'm on.

FWIW, I don't believe Corbyn is an anti-semite, but I don't believe he did enough to wipe it out of the party.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 41k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • steviewevie

    4825

  • Ozanne

    3505

  • crazyfool1

    3450

  • zahidf

    2247

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I think on a music festival message board it’s a legitimate question to ask. It doesn’t suggest the OP doesn’t give a shit about anything else. Of course there are much bigger things to be worrie

I can’t get the following thought out of my head and it’s making the old bottom lip wobble: Wednesday evening at the 2021 festival, the sun has been out all day but temperature not stifling, perf

Howdy folks...sorry I'm late to the party! Was in a meeting and could see notifications coming up! So, looks very promising indeed. The vaccinated group not only didn't develop severe disease, bu

Posted Images

I'm not particularly political so I'll offer my opinion as such... One thing I think a lot of people may have have felt (like me, and no I didn't vote Tory) was that JC was not a Prime Minister, Head of Geography or something like that maybe but PM, no.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Barney McGrew said:

I'm not particularly political so I'll offer my opinion as such... One thing I think a lot of people may have have felt (like me, and no I didn't vote Tory) was that JC was not a Prime Minister, Head of Geography or something like that maybe but PM, no.

If Corbyn had a shred of decency he’d resign as an MP, call a by-election and go live his retirement out in a warm country somewhere with his wife. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, gooner1990 said:

I work at the uni so you hear things etc....this won't be a quick 'there's the vaccine and the world goes back to normal' situation I'm afraid. :(

no but it is a visible sign that things will slowly get better .... and hopefully that is the way it should be sold , a slow easing of things is better than no easing of things , or what we have had this summer and now easing and then uncertainty ... I like to know where I am 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Barney McGrew said:

I'm not particularly political so I'll offer my opinion as such... One thing I think a lot of people may have have felt (like me, and no I didn't vote Tory) was that JC was not a Prime Minister, Head of Geography or something like that maybe but PM, no.

Boris is much more statesman like! 

Jeez it's depressing. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Punksnotdead said:

I consider myself to be a hard left Labour supporter who voted Corbyn for leader twice. I voted Starmer earlier this year, purely because I thought he had most chance of winning an election.

Does he share all my core values? No, but do I want us to be in opposition for the rest of my life? Definitely not. Sometimes you have to compromise. If the last election taught us anything, it's that this country won't vote for a hard left government.

If it's a choice between a softer left Labour government or endless years of Tory bastards, I know which side I'm on.

FWIW, I don't believe Corbyn is an anti-semite, but I don't believe he did enough to wipe it out of the party.

Don’t think many are disputing that Corbyn didnt perform well on antisemitism all I say is that suspending him from the party is extremely heavy handed (hence why starmer has distanced himself from the decision) and bound to cause more problems than it was worth.

Edited by mattiloy
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Spindles said:

Some positive news in that it looks like Northern Ireland have got over the hump and infection rates are starting to come down.  Here's hoping that that is a pattern that is repeated in the more densely populated parts of the UK over the coming days and weeks.

NI had a 4 week lockdown.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, crazyfool1 said:

no but it is a visible sign that things will slowly get better .... and hopefully that is the way it should be sold , a slow easing of things is better than no easing of things , or what we have had this summer and now easing and then uncertainty ... I like to know where I am 

yeah, map out a timetable of when restrictions can be eased...so people know that with a vaccine available this will end, but we have to be patient.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Barney McGrew said:

I'm not particularly political so I'll offer my opinion as such... One thing I think a lot of people may have have felt (like me, and no I didn't vote Tory) was that JC was not a Prime Minister, Head of Geography or something like that maybe but PM, no.

I read a tweet which summarised my own feelings on this perfectly, it went along the lines of:

If you’re looking for somebody to tell you what to do and when to do it, you are looking for a master not a leader.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Punksnotdead said:

FWIW, I don't believe Corbyn is an anti-semite, but I don't believe he did enough to wipe it out of the party.

I think that part of the reason for that was that he was never in full control. He was a naive puppet, controlled by those around and behind him. To what extent he was complicit in that is up for debate, but he was nothing more than a figurehead for a trojan horse takeover of Labour by the nutjob wing, much as happened with the Tories and johnson.

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Ryan1984 said:

Yeah. I think the concern is the moment people hear the words ‘vaccine approval’ they’ll think it’s all over - add that to the anti-vaxxers...

Indeed. I'm starting to think this won't be r'esolved' until 2022 at least and if any sporting/music festivals are going to go ahead with spectators/punters in attendance next year then it won't as how we know it.

But that's just my opinion!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, steviewevie said:

yeah, map out a timetable of when restrictions can be eased...so people know that with a vaccine available this will end, but we have to be patient.

absolutely .... its the not knowing that causes the issues ... thats hopefully why some of these firebreaks have a decent chance of working ..... we unfortunately now won't get the initial compliance ( for reasons we know ) .... but a way of getting better compliance is to set out a defined timetable for people ... so they can get their lives and heads around whats happening and be able  to develop some plans , the uncertainty is the hardship if people saw the end then they might be happier living with it ... knowing for example in June they could have a foreign holiday with a test .... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, RobertProsineckisLighter said:

Boris is much more statesman like! 

Jeez it's depressing. 

I didn't/don't think that at all.

2 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

I read a tweet which summarised my own feelings on this perfectly, it went along the lines of:

If you’re looking for somebody to tell you what to do and when to do it, you are looking for a master not a leader.

I'm not looking for anybody to tell me owt, odd reply?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/29/2020 at 2:12 PM, st dan said:

The main issue was that he massively alienated a lot of the centre Labour voters - whom make up a large share of the parties support - resulting in them losing seats they never would have dreamed of losing previously. 
There were a lot of people who simply didn’t like Corbyn as a person and instead voted Tory (but don’t get me started on these fools).
It’s massively underrated how important the leaders are when it comes to winning votes - how they act on a personal level rather than any of their parties politics. Boris won a majority election on the fact he was a ‘funny and charming guy’ alone - he really was the golden ticket for them. I think a sensible opposition like Burnham or now Kier can drag them back to mount a genuine challenge next time around. Corbyn was not the right man for the job, and I believe it was a genuine misread of the publics opinion at the time. 

Corbyn made significant gains his first election. At a point May felt so secure in her PM-ship she called it early. He did loads better than Milliband. Against a backdrop of a party pitched against him, and interfering with a view to ensuring he lost (that's all documented in the leaked report, not just made up).

He wasn't always unelectable. He was by the second time around, but that suggests something happened that wasn't as fundamental as "people will never vote for Corbyn". Because they did, in droves. And then they didn't. Be it Brexit, the anti-semitism issue, or just the media ragging on him for so long. 

23 hours ago, SheffJeff said:

It seems I'm a hard left Corbynite which I'm not ashamed of but surely any future Labour policy will include taxing the rich more aggressively?    

Nah they'll tax the middle-classes more, the relatively little, and not actually fix anything. I'm at the point now that I'm willing to pay more taxes for massively structural, Corbyn-like changes to society. Actually fixing it. I'm not sure I am to help Starmer paper over the cracks.

17 hours ago, stuartbert two hats said:

If the Tories won because I thought my principles were more important than keeping children out of poverty, I don't think I'd be able to sleep at night. Every centre right new Labour compromise candidate is better than Boris or Cameron.

It doesn't mean we should just disengage with the political process and take whatever we're given, but whilst we have a FPTP voting system, voting Green is as good as a* vote for the Tories.

I voted for Blair to keep the Tories out and it kept the Tories out. Any self loathing I might have had was eased greatly when the Tories came back into power and reminded me why I didn't want them in.

*Arguably half a vote, depending on how you think about the maths.

That's a fine and strong position and I feel similarly. But it's important to remember that's what UKIP voters were told for decades "a vote for UKIP is a vote for Labour". And they voted UKIP regardless. And they got their referendum. And they got their Leave result. And they're probably getting their no deal. 

So I think it's wrong to suggest like voting for a third party has no impact. It got us Brexit against the will of all three majority parties. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think with Corbyn multiple things are true at the same time:

Corbyn is not an anti-semite.

Corbyn was in charge of the Labour party during a time it had a massive, visible anti-semitism problem.

Corbyn did not sort that problem out.

Part of the reason Corbyn didn't sort that problem out was that others in the party acted to frustrate his attempts to sort it out, because they wanted Corbyn out, and the bad press he was getting was good for them.

It's arguable that some of the reasons he interfered in the way he did was to get around these people.

But ultimately, it was still his house, and still his responsibility. And what frustrates me the most is Corbyn is so used to being a backbencher that he never takes responsibility. He never seemed to get that he leads the party, so therefore it's all his responsibility, even if it's not his fault.

And I feel for Starmer, were it anyone else, you could rely on them to go "I acknowledge the report, I did my best, but clearly it wasn't good enough - it's my responsibility and I'll step down". But of course he won't. Because he's Corbyn.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, tigger123 said:

One of Corbyn's greatest supporters, Len McCluskey (general secretary of Unite union), said only 2 weeks ago on Newsnight about Peter Mandelson "I stopped listening to what Peter Mandelson said many many years ago. I would suggest that Peter just goes into a room and counts his gold, not worry about what’s happening in the Labour Party". This was 2 weeks ago, knowing full well the EHRC report was just about to be released. 

Mandelson has lots of money, that he got as a result of being influential in Blair's government. He also doesn't consider himself Jewish. Therein lies the problem: can we not call someone out for sitting on loads of money they maybe didn't get ethically just because they have a Jewish family, and that's a trope?

7 hours ago, mcshed said:

Except the thing that I was taking issue with and the EHRC was taking issue with and that got Corbyn suspended yesterday was minimising the problem which wasn't going on under the predecessors.

His predecessors likely minimised the problem loads. We know they did, because there were still loads of reports, but it wasn't really reported on. His predecessors mostly ignored the issue because no-one reported on it. I'm not sure it's fair to say the media over-stated it, but it is fair to say they chose an interesting time to suddenly get really interested in it, when it's been a problem for decades.

6 hours ago, eFestivals said:

that may be true.

It's also true that he was completely unsuitable to be leader of a major political party. Some people can do leadership well, Corbyn couldn't do it at all.

Maybe. But I'd argue the same for both Trump and Boris. I think in 2017 Corbyn was well positioned to win a similar "cult of personality" victory, had his party actually backed him. But that only works for the right because the left are far less likely to hold their noses and vote along party lines.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

debatable

I have a good friend who has been mates with Corbyn for over 30 years. He knows him well & insists he definitely isn't anti semitic. I choose to believe my mate more than I believe the Daily Mail!

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Mandelson has lots of money, that he got as a result of being influential in Blair's government. He also doesn't consider himself Jewish. Therein lies the problem: can we not call someone out for sitting on loads of money they maybe didn't get ethically just because they have a Jewish family, and that's a trope?

But he doesn't seem to be questioning whether Mandelson got the money ethically or not. 

He could've just said  "I stopped listening to what Peter Mandelson said many many years ago. I would suggest that Peter just fucks off" or anything other than mentioning counting his gold. It is a problematic statement, whether he wants it to be or not.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Simsy said:

But he doesn't seem to be questioning whether Mandelson got the money ethically or not. 

He could've just said  "I stopped listening to what Peter Mandelson said many many years ago. I would suggest that Peter just fucks off" or anything other than mentioning counting his gold. It is a problematic statement, whether he wants it to be or not.

He could have. Would have been better if he did. But that also doesn't make him wrong. I had no clue Mandelson was Jewish either. It seems more likely to me it never crossed his mind than he's actually being secretly anti-semitic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mark E. Spliff said:

The people who deny the holocaust or believe in daft Jewish conspiracy theories or Bill Gates trying to take over the world wouldn't openly ask for evidence outside their various social media echo-chambers.  If they did, they'd be deluged with it.  If you want to deluge me with evidence - I'm waiting.

As for the EHRC.  That's exactly what I'm talking about: I've read the articles and discussions, but I've not actually seen a shred of evidence.  I still haven't despite you guys having had 3 pages to come up with some.  It's not that difficult - just go and do some Googling and come back with something that isn't hearsay etc.  I've already tried.

For anyone wondering where I'm coming from on this issue: I'm opposed to the aggressive right-wing politics of the zealot settler movement and the brutal war-crimes committed by the IDF.  I want the left wing to be able to shout loudly about these things, the same as we shout about the disgusting behaviour of the Saudi state, without being accused of antisemitism.  The fact that these things are now being equated with antisemitism (and the fact that Corbyn folded over this issue rather than taking a lead on it while he was leader) means the far-right have scored a total victory over the left without a fight.

Others clearly don't, I'm not a Labour supporter but it's clear from an objective look at this that the whole thing stinks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Williamson_(politician)

Is Williamson an anti-semite? a quick look through his political history would suggest not. People might want to forget about Corbyn and his supporters and look to the future with Starmer but they are kidding themselves if they can't see how this has been used to shift the party to the right. We need a decent opposition led by someone with principles, if I were a labour supporter I wouldn't trust Starmer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...



×
×
  • Create New...