advertisement


Poll : Next Labour Leader.

Who would you like as next leader of the L.P.

  • Lisa Nandy

    Votes: 12 6.9%

  • Keir Starmer

    Votes: 88 50.3%

  • Jess Phillips

    Votes: 25 14.3%

  • Angela Rayner

    Votes: 5 2.9%

  • Rebecca Long-Bailey

    Votes: 6 3.4%

  • Emily Thornberry

    Votes: 4 2.3%

  • Other

    Votes: 35 20.0%
  • Total voters
    175
Status
Not open for further replies.
They defeated the Labour Party on unfounded claims of Marxism, Anti Semitism and Fiscal Irresponsibility without any evidence due to Dominic Cummings having a (comparatively) limitless amount to spend on propaganda. I think that is more of a fair recounting of the process.
 
Roger Adams said:
They defeated the Labour Party on unfounded claims of Marxism, Anti Semitism and Fiscal Irresponsibility without any evidence due to Dominic Cummings having a (comparatively) limitless amount to spend on propaganda.
Click to expand...

Unfounded claims of anti-semitism? Really? There is substantial evidence. Have you not heard Jon Lansman's comments? Why else would the Equalities Commission be investigating the party? Why else would John McDonnell say “I apologise to the Jewish community for the suffering we’ve inflicted on them, I say to them we’re doing everything possible, we want to learn more lessons and we want to be the shining example of anti-racism that the Labour Party should be.”
 
Jim Audiomisc said:
I did laugh out loud at that. :) Yes, by sucking up to the newspaper owners and the rich, and then doing what suited them - and allowed things to get worse for most people - he was presented as 'effective', etc.

The problem was that this simply validated the Tories when they'd been shown they weren't the only choice the wealthy could use as their tools. Just lipstick on the same pig. Solves nothing.
Click to expand...
That is complete nonsense, what has Corbyn achieved? Absolutely nothing. Minimum wage, good Friday agreement, investment in Schools & NHS were just a few things that happened under Blair.
 
Jim Audiomisc said:
What's interesting about that is how often The Sun in Scotland has taken a different stance to the The Sun down south. So maybe that backing is two-faced... :)
Click to expand...
Isn't the Sun in Scotland a different title, different editorial team etc. But like I said papers try to back the winners, hence no one backed Corbyn;)
 
Roger Adams said:
Let us offer an alternative view. The IRA were instrumental in forming the Good Friday Agreement which has aided the NI economy enormously - it did so in the only way it could.

Hamas in engaged in a fight against the illegal occupation of their (UN decreed) home land by superior military forces - in the only way possible.

Neither cause is in any way amoral. The methods might be brutal but so is the oppression and destruction. Corbyn stood for those that were the victims of oppression - whatever their means - as he did the anti-Apartheid movement. I cannot see the difference between "terrorist" and 'Freedom Fighter" unless political bias is applied to the equation.
Click to expand...
I do have a problem with the IRA & their transition into the political mainstream but I have no dog in that fight as it were.

You are right about political bias determining who is a terrorist up to a point but it is a very tricky line to navigate.

As I said earlier we are never going to agree on Corbyn & that is perfectly fine.
 
Roger Adams said:
They defeated the Labour Party on unfounded claims of Marxism, Anti Semitism and Fiscal Irresponsibility without any evidence due to Dominic Cummings having a (comparatively) limitless amount to spend on propaganda. I think that is more of a fair recounting of the process.
Click to expand...
Labour's proposals were costed until they threw in the WASPI cash, a not insignificant amount, about £50bn was it?
 
Woodface said:
Labour's proposals were costed until they threw in the WASPI cash, a not insignificant amount, about £50bn was it?
Click to expand...
To be fair, though, that's not a lump sum. It'd be spread out across the years during which the affected WASPI women would be retiring.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
To be fair, though, that's not a lump sum. It'd be spread out across the years during which the affected WASPI women would be retiring.
Click to expand...
That is a good point & it may be lower than that but even if it's, say, £25bn it is still a lot of uncosted cash. I actually think it is the right thing to do but probably a mistake to include it in the manifesto which was packed full of promises.

It's all largely irrelevant now anyway
 
I do wish Corbyn would just shut up now, he appears to have lost all dignity. His onging pronouncements are neither welcome nor helpful, IMHO.
 
Roger Adams said:
Let us offer an alternative view. The IRA were instrumental in forming the Good Friday Agreement which has aided the NI economy enormously - it did so in the only way it could.

Hamas in engaged in a fight against the illegal occupation of their (UN decreed) home land by superior military forces - in the only way possible.

Neither cause is in any way amoral. The methods might be brutal but so is the oppression and destruction. Corbyn stood for those that were the victims of oppression - whatever their means - as he did the anti-Apartheid movement. I cannot see the difference between "terrorist" and 'Freedom Fighter" unless political bias is applied to the equation.
Click to expand...
Did you clear that with the controllers at Momentum? It's very unusual for a Corbyn defender to go onto such indefensible ground. Perhaps you're a Tory plant?
 
Paul R said:
Did you clear that with the controllers at Momentum? It's very unusual for a Corbyn defender to go onto such indefensible ground. Perhaps you're a Tory plant?
Click to expand...

Paul. I'm not even a Labour party supporter. I just see an honest man when they exist in politics. A man with principals. Whether you agree with them or not is down to you. I'd rather and someone in Number 10 who was principled than one who quite blatantly was not.

So Paul. I did defend it. On an intellectual level. Now, if you could explain the difference between a terrorist organisation and an army of freedom fighters that might help to prop up your argument - on a non emotional level.
 
gassor said:
Unfounded claims of anti-semitism? Really?
Click to expand...

My point really was that it was headline news every day in the lead up to the election whereas the rampant Islamophobia across the Conservative Party and indeed much of middle class Britain scarcely received a mention. The inequality was there for all to see and it was politically important.

Were I to be asked which of the two major parties harboured more racists, I don't think it would take me more than ten seconds to tell you.
 
Roger Adams said:
My point really was that it was headline news every day in the lead up to the election whereas the rampant Islamophobia across the Conservative Party and indeed much of middle class Britain scarcely received a mention. The inequality was there for all to see and it was politically important.

Were I to be asked which of the two major parties harboured more racists, I don't think it would take me more than ten seconds to tell you.
Click to expand...

Come on just give a straight answer, is Labour's issue with anti-semitism unfounded, yes or no.
 
gassor said:
Come on just give a straight answer, is Labour's issue with anti-semitism unfounded, yes or no.
Click to expand...

Less so than the Conservative Party's issue with Islamophobia and general racism yet only one was highlighted during the election. If one has a "problem" the other has an "epidemic". This is what I am saying. That is straight. When you have large gatherings of people some will always be racist - just look at a football stadium with 60,000 supporters in it.
 
Roger Adams said:
Paul. I'm not even a Labour party supporter. I just see an honest man when they exist in politics. A man with principals. Whether you agree with them or not is down to you. I'd rather and someone in Number 10 who was principled than one who quite blatantly was not.
Click to expand...
Pol Pot was a socialist man of principle. It's not a sufficient recommendation.

So Paul. I did defend it. On an intellectual level. Now, if you could explain the difference between a terrorist organisation and an army of freedom fighters that might help to prop up your argument - on a non emotional level.
Click to expand...
On an intellectual level you might note that Hamas are primarily terrorising Gazans, and the IRA primarily terrorised the Irish. In both cases routes to peace exist(ed) without any need for any terrorising at all. The terrorists exist to exploit their populations for personal gain.

It is amusing to reflect that in 1940 Corbyn would have been a proxy Nazi supporter via his sympathy for the USSR and you, and many others here, would have been arguing that circle square.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top