The Labour Thread

[Max]

Forgive me for getting behind a man that finally wants to help those who have nothing, not because it would win him votes, but because he genuinely cares about those without a voice. Corbyn is a candle of hope in this evil dark world, unfortunately the world is so full of evil to overcome it is gonna take a huge monumental effort but it is possible, and so long as it's possible us 'dreamers' will continue to fight for what is right.

A candle of hope in this dark evil world?

You can only hold this view if you categorically ignore all criticisms of him, and almost literally view him as a saint. For example, why is it unforgivable that Owen Smith worked for a pharmaceutical company, but Jeremy acting like this is fine: http://uk.businessinsider.com/jeremy-corbyn-paid-iran-press-tv-tortured-journalist-2016-6

Jeremy Corbyn is a career politician, and not a very effective one. He wants to champion people who are vulnerable, but the total dogmatic insistence of his fans that he is the only decent person in existence helps no one. Actual progress comes with compromise, and if I come across as 'pompous', I suspect it's because I am bored of being told that I represent, as you so eloquently put it, 'evil'.

 

[Abertawe]

That's just about as tenuous as you can get, have you not got anything else chum

You should make sure that articles you link are actually true too. Press TV's license to broadcast in the UK wasn't revoked by Ofcom because of what did or didn't happen to Bahari (as the world renowned Adam Payne claims), it was rescinded because it's editorial was based in Iran and refused to move it to the UK which is a breach of it's rules. His assessment that Press TV was complicit in torture because it aired a 10 second clip? That must mean the BBC/ITV/Sky are complicit in torture for airing confessions of people held by IS too then? Unless you're going all conspiracy on us and alleging that because Press TV is a state channel, it works hand in hand with Iranian security authorities to allegedly torture and display said alleged torture on the airwaves.

but the total dogmatic insistence of his fans that he is the only decent person in existence helps no one.

Why do you keep doing this sort of thing? It doesn't strengthen your argument to insinuate stuff that simply hasn't been said.

Jeremy Corbyn is a career politician, and not a very effective one.

Err okay, that's an opinion and you have a right to express it. I'd think it fairly obvious that any politician who becomes leader of their party is fairly effective irrespective of whether you like that politician, radical view I know.

Actual progress comes with compromise.

Nice line, I'm struggling to work out what it actually means though. Compromise - the expedient acceptance of standards that are lower than is desirable. So based off that assertion women should compromise on their rights, LGBT should compromise on their rights, ethnic groups should compromise on their rights. Feeling silly yet? Rights are rights, there is no compromise to be had.

I am bored of being told that I represent, as you so eloquently put it, 'evil'.

Whose told you that darling? I'll fucking do em. Again, if you would be so kind, Max, stop misquoting and making inference that simply isn't there, it doesn't strengthen your argument.

 

[Aber gas]

I wonder if this had anything to do with his sympathy for the IRA?

That's nonsense, he understood that in order to get peace in Ulster Sinn Fein needed to be involved in the conversation. He was doing what Allbright, Clinton , Major et al did ten years later. Are they terrorist sympathisers too ?

 

[Abertawe]

Unless he means that the efforts made by the "ineffective" Corbyn that played a part in overturning the wrongful convictions of the Guilford four & Birmingham six amounts to IRA sympathy.

 

[Aber gas]

Unless he means that the efforts made by the "ineffective" Corbyn that played a part in overturning the wrongful convictions of the Guilford four & Birmingham six amounts to IRA sympathy.

Well yes, but my main point was that whilst Corbyn gets derided as a " terrorist sympathiser" for meeting Adams and Mcguiness during a politically difficult time, mainstream politicians are lauded for doing the same thing in a more politically expedient time.
It was brave, principled and vital that Corbyn and others opened dialogue with Sinn Fein in a time when no one else would. It's ridiculous hypocrisy from the political elite to deride Corbyn as a terrorist sympathiser and then have a cosy pint with two of the most high ranking IRA commanders.

 

[SUTSS]

That's rewriting history somewhat. There's nothing wrong with Corbyn, McDonnell et al backing a united Ireland per se but let's not pretend it was something it wasn't. They could have sided with the SDLP, they didn't. They attended Troops Out rallies and explicitly backed the IRA. They derided the SDLP. They opposed the Anglo-Irish agreement.

Corbyn was also part of Labour Briefing, a magazine that supported the IRA. A magazine that stated “It certainly appears to be the case that the British only sit up and take notice when they are bombed into it” and “We refuse to parrot the ritual condemnation of ‘violence’ because we insist on placing responsibility where it lies…. Let our ‘Iron Lady’ know this: those who live by the sword shall die by it. If she wants violence, then violence she will certainly get.”

And further it would've been impossible to sit down and talk with the IRA earlier. It was only when the IRA realised that they couldn't win that they came to the table. It's a fantasy to think that the 'mainstream' politicians could've just come to the table 10 years earlier and everything would've ended then.

 

[Max]

That's nonsense, he understood that in order to get peace in Ulster Sinn Fein needed to be involved in the conversation. He was doing what Allbright, Clinton , Major et al did ten years later. Are they terrorist sympathisers too ?

I don't say that flippantly, or because he talked to Sinn Fein, but I don't think Clinton, Major etc spent a decade attending IRA events: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...w-reports-of-close-links-to-ira-a6689681.html

He refuses to actually engage with any of these charges, because he knows they're true.

He opposed the Anglo-Irish agreement, and was not helpful in bringing the parties together as he now claims. I though this was interesting reading as well: http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/08/0...r-peace-in-northern-ireland-is-total-fantasy/

 

[Kopper]

I can't recall a post on this thread saying Labour should be creating jobs and opportunities. I've seen posts on the welfare bill and welfare spending. The obligatory posts on the vulnerable, but nothing to do with the nation's aspirations.

 

[.V.]

I can't recall a post on this thread saying Labour should be creating jobs and opportunities. I've seen posts on the welfare bill and welfare spending. The obligatory posts on the vulnerable, but nothing to do with the nation's aspirations.

From what I can tell he's not declared any economic policies apart from ending austerity, nationalising the railways and raising the top rate of income tax. I don't disagree with those, but certainly needs some meat on the bones.

 

[.V.]

Quoting from today's Observer:

"While a majority of Labour supporters (54%) say they approve of Corbyn's performance as leader, against 26% who disapprove, just 16% of all voters think he would make the best PM, against 51% who say they would prefer Theresa May."

The poll is the latest from Opinium/Observer.

 

[Aber gas]

I don't say that flippantly, or because he talked to Sinn Fein, but I don't think Clinton, Major etc spent a decade attending IRA events: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...w-reports-of-close-links-to-ira-a6689681.html

He refuses to actually engage with any of these charges, because he knows they're true.

He opposed the Anglo-Irish agreement, and was not helpful in bringing the parties together as he now claims. I though this was interesting reading as well: http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/08/0...r-peace-in-northern-ireland-is-total-fantasy/

Why should he forced to continually explain a position he has never taken? He has never supported terrorism unless you take the position that being sympathetic to Irish republicanism automatically makes him a terrorist sympathiser. In fact he has spoken out several times against violence on both sides. Personally I find his stance more meaningful than the empty, meaningless expressions of "outrage" mouthed by Westminster hypocrites who were ignorant ( I'm being kind) of or unwilling to understand the reasons and motives behind the conflict any further than Republicanism is evil and must be stamped out. Condemning one form of violence whilst (at fucking best )staying silent on internment and extra judicial execution isnt morally superior or more valid than condemning the violence on both sides of a conflict.
The argument that his contact and sometime support of Sinn Fein makes him a "terrorist" sympathiser is also flawed. If all that is needed to become a terrorist sympathiser is to have contact with a political party that has heavy links to paramilitaries then we are talking about a large wedge of the Conservative party from before the war and up to the present day. The UUP and especially the DUP have overt links with loyalist paramilitaries and have always enjoyed close links to the Conservative party. I don't see much mainstream media calling Thatcher, Tebbit and Major " terrorist sympathisers" weird that innit?

 

[Krazy8]

Why should he forced to continually explain a position he has never taken? He has never supported terrorism unless you take the position that being sympathetic to Irish republicanism automatically makes him a terrorist sympathiser. In fact he has spoken out several times against violence on both sides. Personally I find his stance more meaningful than the empty, meaningless expressions of "outrage" mouthed by Westminster hypocrites who were ignorant ( I'm being kind) of or unwilling to understand the reasons and motives behind the conflict any further than Republicanism is evil and must be stamped out. Condemning one form of violence whilst (at fucking best )staying silent on internment and extra judicial execution isnt morally superior or more valid than condemning the violence on both sides of a conflict.
The argument that his contact and sometime support of Sinn Fein makes him a "terrorist" sympathiser is also flawed. If all that is needed to become a terrorist sympathiser is to have contact with a political party that has heavy links to paramilitaries then we are talking about a large wedge of the Conservative party from before the war and up to the present day. The UUP and especially the DUP have overt links with loyalist paramilitaries and have always enjoyed close links to the Conservative party. I don't see much mainstream media calling Thatcher, Tebbit and Major " terrorist sympathisers" weird that innit?

I don't think you can be as supportive to the ira as he was and not be a terrorist sympathiser personally.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/0...write-the-history-of-his-support-for-the-ira/

 

[Aber gas]

I don't think you can be as supportive to the ira as he was and not be a terrorist sympathiser personally.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/0...write-the-history-of-his-support-for-the-ira/

Again, it's a opinion piece written from a position I fundamentally disagree with. He's entitled to that opinion and he clearly believes his opinions are facts but I disagree for several reasons. Some of which I have already explained above

 

[Kopper]

From what I can tell he's not declared any economic policies apart from ending austerity, nationalising the railways and raising the top rate of income tax. I don't disagree with those, but certainly needs some meat on the bones.

Theresa May told Jeremy Corbyn at PMQs, that she didn't like to think of it as austerity, but as, living within your means.
She also told Corbyn you can't have a policy of unlimited welfare.
Surprisingly he never tried to correct the PM on that assertion.

 

[Kopper]

I don't think you can be as supportive to the ira as he was and not be a terrorist sympathiser personally.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/0...write-the-history-of-his-support-for-the-ira/

Wasn't Mandela a terrorist at one point?

The U.S.A's actions in Libya and Syria would be defined as terrorism. Yet we're still allies with them. What about Saudi Arabia's unprovoked war with Yemen.
Yet we still blindly support them.
If the IRA had access to enough oil or had the military might of the U.S., we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Corbyn's problem is he didn't pick the right terrorists to support.

 

[Max]

Again, it's a opinion piece written from a position I fundamentally disagree with. He's entitled to that opinion and he clearly believes his opinions are facts but I disagree for several reasons. Some of which I have already explained above

I would agree with you, and I don't think Corbyn is/was dangerous in any way. But at the time, that is how he was probably viewed by MI5, which is where this point originally came from.

 

[Aber gas]

I would agree with you, and I don't think Corbyn is/was dangerous in any way. But at the time, that is how he was probably viewed by MI5, which is where this point originally came from.

Yes, I probably got a bit carried away....

 

[.V.]

Chris Addison having a ding dong with Corbyn fans on Twitter is entertaining.

https://twitter.com/mrchrisaddison/status/757325762647171073

 

[Aber gas]

Chris Addison having a ding dong with Corbyn fans on Twitter is entertaining.

https://twitter.com/mrchrisaddison/status/757325762647171073

Cheers mate, I might have to get involved

 

[Abertawe]

Quoting from today's Observer:

"While a majority of Labour supporters (54%) say they approve of Corbyn's performance as leader, against 26% who disapprove, just 16% of all voters think he would make the best PM, against 51% who say they would prefer Theresa May."

The poll is the latest from Opinium/Observer.

I think given the circumstances that isn't surprising and any poll conducted within this period is gonna tell you the same thing. The question is whether those poor polling results are down to Corbyn himself or the coup plotters who have ultimately caused this shambles. To use polls against him at this point is folly imo. I'd say the same if it was the left plotting against a right leaning Labour leader if roles were reversed too. No matter how you view the Tories, most logical people would choose the united party over one that's tearing itself apart.

As I've said previously I view this as a waiting game. Corbyn will win the leadership election, it's then down to the coup brigade to listen to their membership and do the job they're elected to do, leave and join another party or continue to destroy the party from the inside. Should they do what I expect em to do, carry on destroying the party, then deselection will surely be demanded by the majority of members. My personal hope is all of em are thrown out and replaced by people who carry real Labour values and so forth build a party that can implement the vision that so many people in the country share.

 

[.V.]

Cheers mate, I might have to get involved

Enjoy!

 

[Aber gas]

Enjoy!

 

[Aber gas]

Enjoy!

State of these belters..( on both sides, I'd like to add)

 

[Abertawe]

This is a good read shibleyrahman.com/politics-2/owen-smiths-campaign-blowing-up-on-lift-off-is-not-a-good-look/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=socialnetwork

 

[Alty]

Just on Northern Ireland - Corbyn has always been plain wrong there. The British Government never thought there was a purely military solution. Christ, they brokered a power-sharing deal way back in 1974. It's just that the slow learners, as Seamus Mallon called them, didn't work out that it was the only way forward until the 1990s.

 

[Max]

In the interest of explaining why Corbyn's electability is an issue (beyond what's already been said):

https://medium.com/@rob_francis/lab...lectability-of-corbyn-25b867245c23#.fi99wy36p

 

[Abertawe]

Should never have left such an important post in the first place but it's good she didn't allow ego to prevent her going back.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/sarah-champion-unresigns-labour-shadow-8490897

Edit, interesting.

‏@georgeeaton 1h1 hour ago
Labour MPs expect "a few more" to follow Sarah Champion and rejoin the frontbench before or after the contest.

 

[Abertawe]

Normal "I am a socialist" Owen Smith
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...y-paying-TEN-TIMES-going-rate-heart-drug.html

Meanwhile Disabled People Against Cuts have just come out in support of Corbyn. 6 million people registered disabled in the UK, further proof Corbyn reaches parts of society that other political figures simply don't.

 

[Max]

Normal "I am a socialist" Owen Smith
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...y-paying-TEN-TIMES-going-rate-heart-drug.html

Meanwhile Disabled People Against Cuts have just come out in support of Corbyn. 6 million people registered disabled in the UK, further proof Corbyn reaches parts of society that other political figures simply don't.

Disabled people against cuts has a membership of 1,500. They don't automatically speak for 6 million disabled people

 

[Max]

Also there's no point in debating all the good and bad actions of Pfizer. They're a company, so they try to get the highest possible price for their product. Not everything is an evil conspiracy. This is about the US, but gives good examples of why drugs cost more in some countries than others:

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/28/health/us-pays-more-for-drugs/

Making a profit enables Pfizer to spend the £5 billion they spent last year on drug research. I would refer you to:

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/07/nhs-crippled-without-support-big-pharma/

Which actually saves lives. Imagine - a business that makes profit that isn't 100% evil? I imagine this is beyond the conception and understanding of some of the more die-hard Corbyn acolytes.