Jump to content

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


Demitri_C

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, blandy said:

Yes, absolutely wrong....

 

...His people, his "band of furious tramps*" do that for him, whether online or in person.

 

*(c) stewart lee

In the decades before Corbyn had vocal supporters, can you point to personally aggressive and inappropriate conduct towards others on his part?  It's not his style, he doesn't like it, certainly doesn't encourage it, and to imply otherwise really looks like nothing more than a smear.

But again, those opposed to him are very deliberately using personal attacks as part of the strategy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, peterms said:

In the decades before Corbyn had vocal supporters, can you point to personally aggressive and inappropriate conduct towards others on his part? ...and to imply otherwise really looks like nothing more than a smear.

which bit of " his "band of furious tramps*" do that for him" does your post relate to,  Peter? I know he doesn't personally engage in much more than mild anti-semitism and surely doesn't even believe he does.

And why do you want to exclude more recent times, since he has been leader? Don't need to answer that one, we both know why. Because there are loads of examples of exactly what I said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, blandy said:

which bit of " his "band of furious tramps*" do that for him" does your post relate to,  Peter?

"His people do that for him" means that he wishes the outcome but doesn't want to do it himself.  If that is not your meaning, then what?

2 minutes ago, blandy said:

And why do you want to exclude more recent times, since he has been leader? Don't need to answer that one, we both know why. Because there are loads of examples of exactly what I said.

It's not "excluding recent times".  The point I'm making is that he doesn't have a history of personal attacks, which relates to your suggestion that he is content to see such attacks made.  And it's always assumed that those doing the attacks are in some way his responsibility, though we all know that the internet has spawned legions of anonymous people who like to issue online abuse.  An example from today is the attitude of a lot of people attacking the individuals who have made complaints against Salmond, apparently because they think it's some kind of attack on Scottish nationalism.  I imagine Salmond is embarrassed by this and would much prefer it wasn't happening.  It would be very odd to claim that he is responsible for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chindie said:

Frank Field's resigned the whip.

Good riddance.

He's claimed it's because of a culture of nastiness in the party (dogwhistle).

If you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you.

I'm sure it's definitely got nothing to do with his vote of no-confidence and imminent deselection by his CLP.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frank Field, extremist Brexiteer, anti-abortionist, wants a return to National Service, the advisory board of Think Tank Reform, member of the General Synod of the Church of England...

If I took away the name, which party would you think I was describing a member of?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, peterms said:

"His people do that for him" means that he wishes the outcome but doesn't want to do it himself.  If that is not your meaning, then what?

It's not "excluding recent times".  The point I'm making is that he doesn't have a history of personal attacks, which relates to your suggestion that he is content to see such attacks made.  And it's always assumed that those doing the attacks are in some way his responsibility, though we all know that the internet has spawned legions of anonymous people who like to issue online abuse.  An example from today is the attitude of a lot of people attacking the individuals who have made complaints against Salmond, apparently because they think it's some kind of attack on Scottish nationalism.  I imagine Salmond is embarrassed by this and would much prefer it wasn't happening.  It would be very odd to claim that he is responsible for it.

My meaning is that while he doesn't tell them to do it, or hint they should do it, nevertheless they do it, and then he is rather reluctant to meaningfully discourage it, and he rather likes (IMO) the effect, or the results of the effect it creates. Turning something of a blind eye (as with all kinds of other areas) is his modus operandi - whether intentional, or sub-consciously, or because he cannot conceive that he's ever anything other than holier than thou righteous.

Very much like your example from today, yes. It's rather helpful perhaps, so mild condemnation might tick the "nothing to do with me guv" box, but as with Boris Johnson and many other politicians, they are rather murkier than they like to project. They send signals, knowing exactly what will happen, but are distant enough to go with a pretence of innocence.

It's not ALL down to Corbyn/AS/ Clown, but some of it is very much so.

Like this kind of stuff

Quote

When I interviewed Johanna Baxter, a member of Labour’s ruling National Executive Committee, last night, it was clear to me how upset she was about the abuse and intimidation she says she’s received. She’s normally a confident, self-possessed person, but last night she was trembling and holding back tears.

Ms Baxter says she’s received a couple of thousand emails urging her to put Jeremy Corbyn on the leadership ballot – a decision endorsed by the NEC at their meeting this week. What’s disturbed her is how many of those emails were threatening or abusive. She and some of her colleagues feel under siege.

In order to try and curb the intimidation, she argued forcefully for a secret vote on the issue at the NEC meeting, and was utterly appalled when Mr Corbyn opposed such a move. ...

.....Hence her decision to speak to me on last night’s Channel 4 News. Afterwards, there was a lot of support on Twitter for her. But there were also rather too many abusive tweets aimed both at Ms Baxter and myself for having the temerity to give her a platform. Some of the tweets challenged me and her to produce the evidence of abuse and threatening behaviour.

I haven’t seen all the emails, but the ones I have are nasty enough.

One Labour member and supporter of Mr Corbyn wrote to her warning: “We know where you live.”

Corbyn himself has condemned this sort of intimidation and he and some of his supporters say they are also victims of appalling messages on social media but the number of people, especially women coming forward on the anti Corbyn side is overwhelming.

Another describes the 172 MPs who moved a motion of no confidence in Mr Corbyn as “backstabbing Blairite Red Tories”, “Tory Nazis” and “parasites” who “put greed before need”. The correspondent concludes: “Tell the rebel MPs get behind Corbyn or face deselection. We the real Labour voters will not vote for Champaign (sic) Labour corrupt backstabbing bastards.”

Another email lists members of the NEC predicted to “vote the right way”, in favour of putting Mr Corbyn on the leadership ballot, but singles out Ms Baxter and a colleague as those they’re “doubtful about”, urging recipients to “target” the pair via personal email, which is then revealed.

Another Labour party member begins “respectfully” but swiftly becomes rather more menacing. MPs who opposed Mr Corbyn have got it coming, it’s suggested. “I believe pickets would ensure that the plotters never had peace, ever again. There would be hecklers and cat-calls at every meeting,” it says.

Ms Baxter’s personal email and mobile number were tweeted out for all to see.

So there you have it: intimidating, yes. Abusive, yes. Acceptable? Absolutely not.

...Mr Corbyn insists he’s denounced the abuse many times, and has himself received death threats: “As someone who has also received death threats this week and previously, I am calling on all Labour Party members and supporters to act with calm and treat each other with respect and dignity, even where there is disagreement.”

So clear intimidation and abuse, and no condemnation, just "please be nice".

And that was before he was leader (I think).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, bickster said:

Frank Field, extremist Brexiteer, anti-abortionist, wants a return to National Service, the advisory board of Think Tank Reform, member of the General Synod of the Church of England...

If I took away the name, which party would you think I was describing a member of?

It depends. Most parties have a wide range of views and policy preferences amongst their membership. Other parts of Field's record are clear labour. He doesn't fit with the momentum type of Labour for sure. but he doesn't fit with a typical stereotype of any party, IMO. Even without the racism problems, I could see him leaving Labour, true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, blandy said:

My meaning is that while he doesn't tell them to do it, or hint they should do it, nevertheless they do it, and then he is rather reluctant to meaningfully discourage it, and he rather likes (IMO) the effect, or the results of the effect it creates. Turning something of a blind eye (as with all kinds of other areas) is his modus operandi - whether intentional, or sub-consciously, or because he cannot conceive that he's ever anything other than holier than thou righteous.

Very much like your example from today, yes. It's rather helpful perhaps, so mild condemnation might tick the "nothing to do with me guv" box, but as with Boris Johnson and many other politicians, they are rather murkier than they like to project. They send signals, knowing exactly what will happen, but are distant enough to go with a pretence of innocence.

It's not ALL down to Corbyn/AS/ Clown, but some of it is very much so.

Like this kind of stuff

So clear intimidation and abuse, and no condemnation, just "please be nice".

And that was before he was leader (I think).

Well, you explain your personal animus against Corbyn, without actually supporting the argument that he wants people to be abused.  Lumping him together with Johnson on the basis that they are politicians is really not an argument.

As for the Cathy Newman article, after her disgrace in making up that story about being expelled from a mosque, disproved by cctv but which would otherwise probably have been taken on trust, I think we can all be clear that honest and objective journalism is not exactly her aim.

I don't know the details of the case she discusses.  What I do know is that there is a long tradition of the right wing of the Labour Party making up or grossly exaggerating stories about being intimidated, with a view to inviting party action against people who are outnumbering them in voting forums.  Three examples.

One, from years back, from personal experience, a Labour councillor who parked her car in a side street near the town hall where cars were regularly vandalised, so that each morning you were likely to find broken car window glass on the street, had her tyres slashed and claimed it had been done by left wing members of her own party who didn't like her.  No evidence, nothing, just a tale that was retailed around the party for those credulous enough to accept it.  Followed by a complaint to party HQ.  There was obviously no chance of action, but it was part of a bigger pattern of building up a history of complaints with a view to getting the local party suspended, so that a candidate could be imposed.  The outcome was Kate Hoey.

Two, that prat whose forgettable name I forget, who last year claimed that a brick had been thrown through her office window, only for it to be shown that it was a multiply occupied office block and the brick had gone through the window of a common stair, ie not her office.  She seemed to be trying to create a narrative of victimisation based on lies.

Three, Ruth Smeeth, publicly criticised by Marc Wadsworth for having dealings with the Telegraph, leaving the meeting in floods of tears and claiming anti-semitism, not on the basis of anything said but because she is Jewish.  Incredible.

It's a long and practised tactic, and it often works.  It's reached the point where I would require some independently verified evidence, not from someone like Cathy Newman, before taking it as accurate.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, peterms said:

 

Two, that prat whose forgettable name I forget, who last year claimed that a brick had been thrown through her office window, only for it to be shown that it was a multiply occupied office block and the brick had gone through the window of a common stair, ie not her office.  She seemed to be trying to create a narrative of victimisation based on lies.

 

 

Angela Eagle

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, blandy said:

It depends. Most parties have a wide range of views and policy preferences amongst their membership. Other parts of Field's record are clear labour. He doesn't fit with the momentum type of Labour for sure. but he doesn't fit with a typical stereotype of any party, IMO. Even without the racism problems, I could see him leaving Labour, true.

Described by less a bastion of left-wing politics in the UK, The Daily Torygraph as one of the most influential right-wing politicians in the country

He has also rebuffed a number of attempts by the Tory Party to get him to defect

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, peterms said:

Well, you explain your personal animus against Corbyn, without actually supporting the argument that he wants people to be abused.  Lumping him together with Johnson on the basis that they are politicians is really not an argument.

As for the Cathy Newman article, after her disgrace in making up that story about being expelled from a mosque, disproved by cctv but which would otherwise probably have been taken on trust, I think we can all be clear that honest and objective journalism is not exactly her aim.

I don't know the details of the case she discusses.  What I do know is that there is a long tradition of the right wing of the Labour Party making up or grossly exaggerating stories about being intimidated, with a view to inviting party action against people who are outnumbering them in voting forums.  Three examples.

One, from years back, from personal experience, a Labour councillor who parked her car in a side street near the town hall where cars were regularly vandalised, so that each morning you were likely to find broken car window glass on the street, had her tyres slashed and claimed it had been done by left wing members of her own party who didn't like her.  No evidence, nothing, just a tale that was retailed around the party for those credulous enough to accept it.  Followed by a complaint to party HQ.  There was obviously no chance of action, but it was part of a bigger pattern of building up a history of complaints with a view to getting the local party suspended, so that a candidate could be imposed.  The outcome was Kate Hoey.

Two, that prat whose forgettable name I forget, who last year claimed that a brick had been thrown through her office window, only for it to be shown that it was a multiply occupied office block and the brick had gone through the window of a common stair, ie not her office.  She seemed to be trying to create a narrative of victimisation based on lies.

Three, Ruth Smeeth, publicly criticised by Marc Wadsworth for having dealings with the Telegraph, leaving the meeting in floods of tears and claiming anti-semitism, not on the basis of anything said but because she is Jewish.  Incredible.

It's a long and practised tactic, and it often works.  It's reached the point where I would require some independently verified evidence, not from someone like Cathy Newman, before taking it as accurate.

Thank you. I’ve got a personal animus against Corbyn, Newman is a shoddy journalist Smeeth talked to the Telegraph...therefore....

thats it in a nutshell. Ignore because...they’re obviously y’know...

perhaps, just maybe, I have “an animus” [ I just don’t rate him at all, I think he’s a wrong ‘un] against Corbyn because of examples such as this one, not what you’re implying which is that I’m having a go at him because I don’t rate him. I’d absolutely be, if not chuffed, relieved if this kind of thing wasn’t happening, if Labour was effectively opposing the tories, and Brexit instead of being rendered asunder by by internal disputes, plots, counter deselection threats, anti semitism, inept leadership and all the rest. It’s so inwards focused, instead of outwards. Sure they’ve always has headwinds because of the media loading for the tories, but his approach is not working, and worse than that, with the most inept, riven, terrible government ever they’re losing because of him.

maybe I read it wrong, maybe decency, tolerance and egalitarianism will prevail through Corbyn’s saintly leadership...

no, then again, perhaps not.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bickster said:

He has also rebuffed a number of attempts by the Tory Party to get him to defect

Well exactly. The bastard Tory that he is, refusing to join the tories like that. ‘Kin Tory.

but seriously, he’s a bit “independent” minded, sure, and 40 odd years as a labour MP  suggests maybe labour has left him as much as he’s left them. Which is okay , things change, and he’s wrong on Brexit and has no divine right to be MP for wherever it is, but that applies to all of them. in a way it’s indicative of the flaws in the U.K. system of parliament and of parties. Lifelong campaigner against exploitation of the poor, ideas as to how to change that...sorry, you’re out Frank, not Corbyny enough...ok I quit..go on then, eff off you Tory.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the last two pages summarises Labour's issues pretty well really. A lot of people have an issue with this whole antisemitism saga and how it's been handled, and then you have the odd Labour supporter going to great lengths trying to discredit, discourage and blame others for Labour's issues.

At the end of the day it really doesn't matter what Corbyn does, for some he walks on water and he's turned Labour into some sort of tribal group where his attack dogs can do and say whatever they want with him only occasionally "apologising" for himself and others stepping far over the line. Who's better qualified to decide how an ethnic group should experience racism than a 70-year old white man living in one of London's richest boroughs who's lived practically his whole life in obscurity while cashing in his salary from the hardworking people of Britain. That is what's ironic @peterms, not the fact that the Jewish community thinks he's a plonker.

Hard-left Labour has no intention of accepting that it has a problem.

Edited by magnkarl
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

At the end of the day it really doesn't matter what Corbyn does, for some he walks on water and he's turned Labour into some sort of tribal group where his attack dogs can do and say whatever they want with him only occasionally "apologising" for himself and others stepping far over the line.

To be fair, for some it's the same but the total opposite viewpoint.

Look I'm not Corbyn fan, nor a Labour fan. They have handled and managed the antisemitism situation pretty shoddily tbh, but the mud slinging from the press in the hope that something sticks eventually, mostly due to how terrible the Tories in government are, is exhausting. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, StefanAVFC said:

To be fair, for some it's the same but the total opposite viewpoint.

Look I'm not Corbyn fan, nor a Labour fan. They have handled and managed the antisemitism situation pretty shoddily tbh, but the mud slinging from the press in the hope that something sticks eventually, mostly due to how terrible the Tories in government are, is exhausting. 

It's the cynical nature of it that annoys me.  Do you think most Tory supporters or the right wing press drumming this home give an absolute stuff about the Jewish population's feelings?  

Edited by Wainy316
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, LondonLax said:

Trump (rightly IMO) gets a lot of blame with his supporters getting more and more vocal about spreading far right extremist views and I think Corbyn could do more to discourage anti Semitic views from his supporters. 

Apart from being an anti racism campaigner for his entire life and condemning anti semitism? 

For what it's worth, a yougov survey recently showed that Labour party members have the lowest level of anti semetic views when compared to the general public as a whole, and you guessed it, the Conservative party who romp ahead when it comes to racist views. 

There is anti semitism in the Labour party, but it's not rampant and rife. It's disgusting and it need to be tackled, but let's not try to pretend that Corbyn condones it, because he doesn't. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Wainy316 said:

It's the cynical nature of it that annoys me.  Do you think most Tory supporters or the right wing press drumming this home give an absolute stuff about the Jewish population's feelings?  

How about when the Jewish population repeatedly says what they think is wrong? It's not cynical of someone to speak up when they've got proper concerns. This whole saga started and ended with Livingstone and Shah. Corbyn did not have the backbone to clear out the garbage then, and he doesn't have an intention of doing so to his life long supporters and companions no matter how far they overstep.

For Labour to clear the garbage out of it's left wing someone needs to actually talk to the people that this effects. That isn't the Jewish Voice for Labour or Jewdas, it's the main groupings of Jews around the UK - for someone who's part of said groups there is a lot of growing resentment for Corbyn and his weak dealings with clear racism and total partisan view of the Palestine conflict.

The issue for Labour is that whenever someone says something about this it's "media story" or "a smear campaign". Have you ever thought that it's possible that Corbyn's done some pretty mind boggling things to upset said community? There is a reason that most of the Jews in the UK went from voting Labour to voting for other parties, and no - it isn't all a "tory smear campaign".

Let's put this in another example. Picture yourself that the London Met Police sat down in the early 90's and decided that it was going to look at adapting a code on racism against the Afro-Caribbean community. To do so it looked at a code that's been accepted by pretty much the whole Western world but decided that it was going to "change" a few of the principles based on how 4 out of the 6 white people of the board felt about those examples. It might put some of their officers in trouble if they adopted the full code so they removed or altered 3 examples. They then handed this over to the community and expected them to be happy about it, when the community reacted badly they blamed the community as no one on the board consulted with or spoke to anyone in said community. 

Labour is playing victims in a fight they started with some pretty awful PR-decisions. 

Edited by magnkarl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, VILLAMARV said:

You just described almost every politician in every party up and down the country to me. Holding Corbyn to these principles and not the rest is totally disingenuous.

 

Especially as... "Applying double standards by requiring of it a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation" is one of the examples in the IHRA definition. The same principle must apply surely

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â