The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[meregreen]

7 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

id have thought Murdoch and Corbyn were perfect bedfellows , they'll both say and do anything  if they think it will be popular 

 

 

 

Corbyn is probably the most upfront politician in the country. It's one of the reasons the Tory press couldn't nail him. Unlike Miliband , he didn't sit on the fence and prevaricate, he simply said what he thought. People actually warmed to that. There's a lesson there for all politicians. The analogy with the media anti Christ that is Rupert Murdoch is just a bit silly.

[blandy]

5 hours ago, peterms said:

The article doesn't come across to me as seeking to persuade readers of anything, but instead to reinforce and confirm existing views....in a newspaper whose readership contains a lot of right-wing and racist people is really not an attempt to discuss a serious issue in a nuanced way.  There's a good piece here by Shaista Aziz pointing out among other things...

Which is of course the Sun's agenda, and Champion's crude and unhelpful piece serves that agenda.  How she doesn't see that, I have no idea..

I guess we see it differently then. My point was if labour boycotts the sun and mail then those readers are not exposed or talked to by labour. I revile both those rags, but I'm not seeking anyone to vote for me or to persuade anyone of labours values. Not all sun and mail readers are racists, all the ones I know are far from it. But I won't take offence on their behalf and ask you to resign for that dog whistle.

the article you link is not by champion and she had no involvement, but it's part of the reason corbyn sacked her. Daft. Don't write an article in a paper where someone else might write a different article or you're fired. Cool.

 

[peterms]

10 minutes ago, blandy said:

My point was if labour boycotts the sun and mail then those readers are not exposed or talked to by labour.

I agree that Labour should seek to talk to people who read the Sun.  Writing in the Sun is not the only or best way to do it, though.  Unless of course the paper is going to offer a regular platform, uncensored, where an alternative view can be put forward consistently and over a long period.

If they are going to talk to Sun readers in the columns of the Sun, then don't do it in a way which reinforces racist stereotypes and actively undermines challenging the Sun's line, would be my view.

11 minutes ago, blandy said:

the article you link is not by champion and she had no involvement, but it's part of the reason corbyn sacked her.

I haven't seen an account of why she was fired.  Quite possibly the publication of Kavanagh's article made it even more obvious that Champion's piece was being used to support the Islamophobic agenda of the Sun.  Perhaps a piece by Champion attacking the way the sun had used her article in a way that led into an article on the "Muslim problem", and setting out a strong counter position, might have helped.  As it is, she is reported to be thrilled with her piece, and I haven't seen a comment from her about the Kavanagh piece - don't know if she has made any comment.

[blandy]

11 minutes ago, peterms said:

 

32 minutes ago, blandy said:

My point was if labour boycotts the sun and mail then those readers are not exposed or talked to by labour.

If they are going to talk to Sun readers in the columns of the Sun, then don't do it in a way which reinforces racist stereotypes and actively undermines challenging the Sun's line, would be my view.

It comes across to me a bit like the sun is all "that lot are all bad... I'm not racist, some of my best friends..." and corbyn is like "for gods sake don't say any of them are bad" and champion said "there is a bit of a problem with a few of them" and what happened was the sun used her words to support their view, corbyn potted her for not adhering to his rule and a good person who is tackling a problem lost her job. The sun can go and rot for all I care, but corbyn's potted a good person and is once again (imo) a poor judge.

 

[peterms]

56 minutes ago, blandy said:

champion said "there is a bit of a problem with a few of them"

Well, what she said, as the lead para in a piece in a paper which stirs Islamophobic sentiment, was

Quote

BRITAIN has a problem with British Pakistani men raping and exploiting white girls. There. I said it. Does that make me a racist? Or am I just prepared to call out this horrifying problem for what it is?

If she had said there was a bit of a problem, in fact a big and deeply concerning problem, but expressed it in a way which didn't allow the Sun to present child sex abuse as something specific to the Pakistani community (which then somehow morphs into "Muslims"), there wouldn't be such concern about what she said.

She seeks to present it as something that can't be talked about - oddly, since it is being talked about all over the media - and that daring to mention it should get her a Brownie badge for outstanding courage in the face of the oppressive thought police.

This is why it seems to me not a serious contribution to a serious debate, but a self-serving bit of attention seeking which has done nothing at all to assist efforts to tackle child abuse,  and to the extent which it alienates potential supporters in the Muslim community, may actually have a negative effect with regard to child abuse, as well as the wider impact of feeding racist sentiment.

Which takes me back to the question that Corbyn faced: if this is the level of political awareness and judgement possessed by this person, are they fit to hold a portfolio?

To which, my answer would be, no.

[blandy]

It's kind of odd don't you think @peterms that talking to Hamas, the IRA etc is said to be a positive for Jez za, yet somehow writing an article in the Sun is a bit beyond the pale?  Double standards,  hypocrisy. I genuinely can't get my head round why people think the bell end is a good leader, somehow suitable to lead. He's an utter effwit with many clueless apostles ( not directed at you, who is far from...). Policies, yes, quite a few I like and agree with, but he's from another planet in terms of ability and judgement, and not in a good way.

[peterms]

7 minutes ago, blandy said:

It's kind of odd don't you think @peterms that talking to Hamas, the IRA etc is said to be a positive for Jez za, yet somehow writing an article in the Sun is a bit beyond the pale?  Double standards,  hypocrisy. I genuinely can't get my head round why people think the bell end is a good leader, somehow suitable to lead. He's an utter effwit with many clueless apostles ( not directed at you, who is far from...). Policies, yes, quite a few I like and agree with, but he's from another planet in terms of ability and judgement, and not in a good way.

Talking to Hamas and the IRA are good things.

Writing an article in the Sun is not in itself a bad thing.

Writing that particular article, framed in that way, in the Sun, is a bad thing.

I don't see double standards here, just a different political judgement than you make.

Why do people think he's a good leader?  Partly because he has been consistent down the years - one of the main reasons why the Blairites hate him is because he has taken a consistent position based on principles, and refused to go along with the focus group approach to saying whatever might be most popular.  Some people for example are impressed by old photos of him being hauled away by the police at an anti-apartheid demo.  Partly because he is so different to the Blairites.  Partly because he tries to articulate ideas which others don't,  but which need airing.

He's not actually a great leader, and has had little experience of leading anything.  So I think a lot of the positive sentiment towards him is about his position and his willingness to expound certain views, rather than thinking he's a case study of an effective leader.

In the context of the very limited choices our political system allows us, that is good enough.

I speak as an active member of another political party which fights against his party for votes, not a cheerleader for him or his party.

[blandy]

10 hours ago, peterms said:

Talking to Hamas and the IRA are good things.

Writing an article in the Sun is not in itself a bad thing.

Writing that particular article, framed in that way, in the Sun, is a bad thing.

I don't see double standards here, just a different political judgement than you make.

Why do people think he's a good leader?  Partly because he has been consistent down the years - one of the main reasons why the Blairites hate him is because he has taken a consistent position based on principles, and refused to go along with the focus group approach to saying whatever might be most popular.  Some people for example are impressed by old photos of him being hauled away by the police at an anti-apartheid demo.  Partly because he is so different to the Blairites.  Partly because he tries to articulate ideas which others don't,  but which need airing.

He's not actually a great leader, and has had little experience of leading anything.  So I think a lot of the positive sentiment towards him is about his position and his willingness to expound certain views, rather than thinking he's a case study of an effective leader.

In the context of the very limited choices our political system allows us, that is good enough.

I speak as an active member of another political party which fights against his party for votes, not a cheerleader for him or his party.

You may not see double standards, but for example, Darren's post that Dave liked

On 18/08/2017 at 22:00, darrenm said:

I'd have sacked her just for even validating the Sun as a newspaper, that horrible shitrag source of most of society's current ills

does seem to rather contradict that and to reflect the view of many of Corbyn's supporters, as well as playing a part in her sacking. I understand their loathing of the rag, and the post may just reflect their loathing, too. But the words say "sack her for...."

His consistency is no better than many Blairites nor any worse. Peter Hain is also a longstanding anti apartheid actor, for example. Corbyn is/was anti EU..pro EU..who knows now?

i agree that he has articulated things which needed saying on wealth and so on. He's rightly trying to correct the relentless drift towards big companies running things. Good on him for doing so. He is recognisably a normal human and a kind person, and that's great. I wish there were more.

I think his current popularity comes from his humanity and the contrast with May. His actual abilities are extremely limited, IMO. He's got better, but from a very low starting point.

[peterms]

45 minutes ago, blandy said:

You may not see double standards, but for example, Darren's post that Dave liked

On 18/08/2017 at 22:00, darrenm said:

I'd have sacked her just for even validating the Sun as a newspaper, that horrible shitrag source of most of society's current ills

does seem to rather contradict that and to reflect the view of many of Corbyn's supporters, as well as playing a part in her sacking. I understand their loathing of the rag, and the post may just reflect their loathing, too. But the words say "sack her for...."

Well, Darren can speak for himself, but in my opinion writing something in the Sun which furthers their racist agenda is an astonishing thing to do, and amounts to working against your own side.  It's the combination of what she wrote, how she wrote it, and where she published it.  The reaction, including the Sun following it up with an anti-Muslim piece, illustrates that it was enormously unhelpful to her own side.  I'm sure she will have had plenty of people make that point to her.  I still don't understand the reasoning behind it, but "making a contribution to the debate" doesn't seem plausible.  It really does raise some big questions about her judgement and her competence in her role.  I don't see the comparison with talking to Hamas and the IRA, but if you mean that speaking to some pretty dodgy people is similar to writing for the Sun, I would say that several Labour people have written for the Sun and the reaction has been raised eyebrows, if that, rather than condemnation, because they didn't write anything like that.

45 minutes ago, blandy said:

His consistency is no better than many Blairites nor any worse.

One of the points of difference between the Blairites and the left was the use of focus groups in making policy.  Mandelson famously set up an elaborate system of testing opinion among selected groups of people, and working policy around their views.  That is at the heart of people viewing the Blairites as unprincipled followers of opinion.  That's not to say that everything they did was inconsistent, but it is an important point of difference between the two camps.

45 minutes ago, blandy said:

Peter Hain is also a longstanding anti apartheid actor, for example. Corbyn is/was anti EU..pro EU..who knows now?

I would see apartheid as an issue of principle, reflecting the values you hold.  If you change your mind on it, that would be a very significant life event, suggesting a sea change in an entire outlook.  The EU is not an issue like that.  It is a political structure with rules which change, and it may or may not be a useful means to an end such as trade or relations with other countries.  It may be useful at one point, and less so at another.  When it was more about fostering trade relationships it was perhaps better than when it slid into negotiating TTIP in secret, and crushing the Greek economy.  Support for the EU to me is contingent on what it does and the balance of advantages and disadvantages of membership, not a matter of principle, and changing your view on whether we should remain in the EU doesn't at all feel like the kind of life change that shifting your views on apartheid would represent.  It's a potential means to an end, not an article of faith or an expression of values and moral outlook.  If someone decides that the balance of pros and cons of EU membership has shifted so that membership is more or less advantageous than before, and on that basis changes their view on membership, I wouldn't see that as an especially big thing, more like a rational response to changing circumstances.  I think a lot of people are fairly ambivalent about the EU (though concerned about the damage a badly planned exit will do), and don't have very strong views one way or another.  The people who see EU membership as a matter of principle are, I would think, a minority.

[blandy]

12 minutes ago, peterms said:

I don't see the comparison with talking to Hamas and the IRA, but if you mean that speaking to some pretty dodgy people is similar to writing for the Sun, I would say that several Labour people have written for the Sun and the reaction has been raised eyebrows, if that, rather than condemnation,

The point about Hamas, the IRA and the sun was that Corbyn and his supporters have no problem with talking to, praising, supporting the terrorists, but have a hissy fit when someone dares to write an article in a tabloid paper. It's the bending, or completely ignoring of, standards to defend whatever Corbyn does. If you're going to claim that "well, you need to engage with some unpleasant people in order to persuade them...." in regard of murderers, mailers, torturers etc. It's really not a good look to sack someone for writing an article in the Murdoch Sun, on the basis that it's a bit of a distasteful rag, and you don't like the way the article might later be used by bigots to try and claim some sort of validation. "Big up the IRA massive, righteous cause...Hamas, dudes, cool rockets!". "Wrote in the Sun, burn the witch"

He's not the messiah, he's a plonker.

 

 

[peterms]

15 minutes ago, blandy said:

The point about Hamas, the IRA and the sun was that Corbyn and his supporters have no problem with talking to, praising, supporting the terrorists, but have a hissy fit when someone dares to write an article in a tabloid paper. It's the bending, or completely ignoring of, standards to defend whatever Corbyn does. If you're going to claim that "well, you need to engage with some unpleasant people in order to persuade them...." in regard of murderers, mailers, torturers etc. It's really not a good look to sack someone for writing an article in the Murdoch Sun, on the basis that it's a bit of a distasteful rag, and you don't like the way the article might later be used by bigots to try and claim some sort of validation. "Big up the IRA massive, righteous cause...Hamas, dudes, cool rockets!". "Wrote in the Sun, burn the witch"

He's not the messiah, he's a plonker.

Corbyn doesn't support terrorists, though there was a very big campaign during the last election, stage managed by Conservative Central Office, to make out that he does.

Corbyn didn't sack Champion, she resigned.

There is some comment from Champion here, in the wake of her article and Kavanagh's:

Quote

...The MP said her original aim had been to try to “open the debate about a very specific form of child abuse”.

“However, the Sun decided to make the headline and opening sentences highly inflammatory and they could be taken to vilify an entire community on the basis of race, religion or country of origin,” she said.

Champion said she did not write the headline or opening sentences, which she said were “stripped of any nuance about the complex issue of grooming gangs, which have exploited thousands in my constituency”.

“The article should not have gone out in my name and I apologise that it did,” she said.

Of the Kavanagh piece, Champion said she was horrified that a “repulsive and extreme Islamophobic” column had quoted her positively. “I am ashamed that he made positive reference to my own piece. We must always stand up against racism and prejudice, whatever form it takes,” she said...

The Sun claim to have emails from her office saying she was thrilled with the article.  I suppose it's possible that the Sun twisted the article as she claims, and that a member of her team gave it the ok without her seeing the final version.  That might explain why she claims to have been misrepresented but still feels she had to take responsibility.  Her assessment above, that the piece could be taken to vilify an entire community, is widely shared.  Resignation seems appropriate.

It's not a case of twisting things to defend whatever Corbyn does, it's a shadow minister who has made a massive error and has accepted that.  It's not about Corbyn.

 

[blandy]

3 hours ago, peterms said:

Corbyn doesn't support terrorists, though there was a very big campaign during the last election, stage managed by Conservative Central Office, to make out that he does.

Corbyn didn't sack Champion, she resigned.

John MacDonnell and Dianne Abbott  - his two main supporters, have both apologised for supporting or praising the IRA.

Stop the War, of which Corbyn is chairman and supporter have issued some pretty supportive statements about various terrorists. Enough for Caroline Lucas to resign from the group.

Various people in the past have vouched for Corbyn's support for the IRA and their cause. His sharing a platform with anti Semitic, terroristy Middle East folk is not exactly news.

Of course, we can choose what to believe, what not to.

[magnkarl]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

John MacDonnell and Dianne Abbott  - his two main supporters, have both apologised for supporting or praising the IRA.

Stop the War, of which Corbyn is chairman and supporter have issued some pretty supportive statements about various terrorists. Enough for Caroline Lucas to resign from the group.

Various people in the past have vouched for Corbyn's support for the IRA and their cause. His sharing a platform with anti Semitic, terroristy Middle East folk is not exactly news.

Of course, we can choose what to believe, what not to.

You see the same thing when it came to very loud and verbal Corbyn supporters on here when it came to the Charlottesville thing. Usually they are the first to judge people when it comes to "not condemning" fascists, however when it comes to Corbyn condemning one of his friends in Maduro who is murdering protesters left right and centre the focus goes to "Corbyn shouldn't have to condemn anyone, he's not Maduro". It's not always easy to try to convert the choir, but I think you are making a good case Blandy.

Corbyn talks to IRA, Hamas, socialist militias, M-19, Hezbollah = good! He's engaging. 

Corbyn doesn't want to talk to Maduro or comment = good! He shouldn't have to condemn something he's not part of!

Headscratcher?

In fact, when Trump condemns all sides in a violent brawl it's bad. When Corbyn said “What I condemn is the violence that’s been done by any side, by all sides, in all this. Violence is not going to solve the issue." when a socialist government is murdering demonstrators it's okay, though. It's extremely hypocritical. 

Edited August 20, 2017 by magnkarl

[blandy]

13 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

when it comes to Corbyn condemning one of his friends in Maduro who is murdering protesters left right and centre the focus goes to "Corbyn shouldn't have to condemn anyone, he's not Maduro"

I kind of agree with them.  Think I said earlier in the thread that the whole "condemn him" thing is  media game. If he condemns him then the headline is "Corbyn admits Socialist state is contemptible" and if he doesn't then it's "Corbyn refuses to condemn Socialist monster".

The whole media game is daft, really. It's about generating headlines to sell papers or get clicks, it's not actually about listening to a response to whatever situation has arisen.

Corbyn's responses tend to somehow manage to get it wrong as well, though I have sympathy with the way he's covered, or his distrust of it. But in saying "I condemn all violence" he's kind of doing the same thing Trump does - drawing equivalence in a way between oppressive regimes (or Nazi's in Trump's case) and people protesting about being oppressed and victimised. His refusal to play the game also makes him look more sympathetic to monsters than he should be. It's probably quite hard to give a brief, but coherent view on what's gone on, when a mic is shoved under your nose, though they should be trained to kind of think and speak in straight lines.

Given his humanity is one of his strengths, these neutral responses stand out as evasive or like you say, double standard-y. Perhaps being more human in his response would be the way to go - "It's absolutely horrifying to see [The Venezuelan Gov't forces] behaving brutally and beating and shooting protestors and using armoured vehicles against them, they should stop. It's a disgrace. I'm also worried that violence from protestors is going to end up with more people dead" or something like that. Something human and decent, rather than generically neutral.

[Seat68]

47 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

You see the same thing when it came to very loud and verbal Corbyn supporters on here when it came to the Charlottesville thing. Usually they are the first to judge people when it comes to "not condemning" fascists,

You wanted people to condemn Corbyn for praising Venezualas welfare state. 

[snowychap]

Edit.

Edited August 20, 2017 by snowychap

[meregreen]

Honestly....I don't think the guy struggling to support his family on minimum wage or a zero hour contract gives a **** about the political situation in Venezuela.

[magnkarl]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

I kind of agree with them.  Think I said earlier in the thread that the whole "condemn him" thing is  media game. If he condemns him then the headline is "Corbyn admits Socialist state is contemptible" and if he doesn't then it's "Corbyn refuses to condemn Socialist monster".

The whole media game is daft, really. It's about generating headlines to sell papers or get clicks, it's not actually about listening to a response to whatever situation has arisen.

Corbyn's responses tend to somehow manage to get it wrong as well, though I have sympathy with the way he's covered, or his distrust of it. But in saying "I condemn all violence" he's kind of doing the same thing Trump does - drawing equivalence in a way between oppressive regimes (or Nazi's in Trump's case) and people protesting about being oppressed and victimised. His refusal to play the game also makes him look more sympathetic to monsters than he should be. It's probably quite hard to give a brief, but coherent view on what's gone on, when a mic is shoved under your nose, though they should be trained to kind of think and speak in straight lines.

Given his humanity is one of his strengths, these neutral responses stand out as evasive or like you say, double standard-y. Perhaps being more human in his response would be the way to go - "It's absolutely horrifying to see [The Venezuelan Gov't forces] behaving brutally and beating and shooting protestors and using armoured vehicles against them, they should stop. It's a disgrace. I'm also worried that violence from protestors is going to end up with more people dead" or something like that. Something human and decent, rather than generically neutral.

Agreed, though in a political climate like ours I think people are going to want to believe what they want. No matter how despicable nazis or socialist tin foil hat dictators are the people that support their sort of politics will always find an excuse. Corbyn managed to be strong on his standpoint over IRA over and over - but somehow when a dictator has caused the deaths over some 190+ demonstrators since July he's awkwardly silent. The fact that his right hand man and left hand woman have been to Venezuela and said the elections were "a-okay" when Chavez was in the middle of his worst period of suppression probably has something to do with it.

He can be extremely politically correct when it comes to firing a woman for putting an article in a rag paper about a certain nationality being statistically more likely to be part of a grooming gang, but he can't manage to say the right thing when people get shot for fighting oppression? Sounds like the political equivalent of an arm-chair football fan that knows it all to me. He knee-jerked with Champion and bottled it with Maduro.

Edited August 20, 2017 by magnkarl

[peterms]

2 hours ago, blandy said:

John MacDonnell and Dianne Abbott  - his two main supporters, have both apologised for supporting or praising the IRA.

Stop the War, of which Corbyn is chairman and supporter have issued some pretty supportive statements about various terrorists. Enough for Caroline Lucas to resign from the group.

Various people in the past have vouched for Corbyn's support for the IRA and their cause. His sharing a platform with anti Semitic, terroristy Middle East folk is not exactly news.

Of course, we can choose what to believe, what not to.

McDonnell's remarks, for which he apologised, were to the effect that it was the armed struggle that brought Britain to the negotiating table, and without it there would not have been a peace process.  His apology seems to have been in respect of the offence his remarks caused, rather than it being a mistaken analysis.  He, Corbyn and the Labour left generally don't welcome violence, but see it as something which is sometimes inevitable when a political process fails to accommodate change.

Corbyn has also stepped down from his Stop the War position, after becoming leader.

Lucas disagreed with some things said by STW in the wake of Bataclan to the effect that it was the consequence of western aggression in the ME.  She stepped down as a patron because she didn't have time to fulfill the role, while also noting her disagreement with some statements by the group.

[peterms]

1 hour ago, magnkarl said:

You see the same thing when it came to very loud and verbal Corbyn supporters on here when it came to the Charlottesville thing. Usually they are the first to judge people when it comes to "not condemning" fascists, however when it comes to Corbyn condemning one of his friends in Maduro who is murdering protesters left right and centre the focus goes to "Corbyn shouldn't have to condemn anyone, he's not Maduro". It's not always easy to try to convert the choir, but I think you are making a good case Blandy.

What is happening in Venezuela is yet another US-inspired attempt at overthrowing a government in order to steal natural resources, in this case oil.  The playbook is described here, referring to a plan from 15 years ago, now being acted out.

Quote

...In 2002, Chávez was kidnapped with the blessing of the US Ambassador right out of the presidential palace and flown by helicopter over the Caribbean where, Chávez later told me, the President assumed he’d be invited for a swim from 2,000 feet. Instead, just 48 hours later, Chávez was back at his desk.

But Washington wouldn’t quit the coup business. New documents revealed several interlocked methods (“rings”) for overthrowing Venezuela’s elected government.

First, US operatives would monkey with voter registrations – and if that didn’t steal the election from Chávez’s party, the next step was to provoke riots against Chávez’s elections “theft”. The riots would lead to deaths – the deaths would be the excuse for the US to back another coup d’etat to “restore order” and “democracy” in Venezuela – and restore Venezuela’s oil to Exxon. (Chávez had seized majority control of the oil fields and Exxon was furious.)...

The people who need condemning in this situation are the CIA and the US government, who are seeking to create a situation which can be used as a fig leaf for armed aggression.  I don't suppose we will hear much about the fact that this year, six times more US citizens have been killed by police than the number of Venezuelans killed in clashes.  Calling for an end to violence and for a political solution seems very reasonable.  That wouldn't suit the US, though.