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

[Seat68]

Yannis Mendez put this together right? @darrenm no doubt its another view, without question but its still Yannis Mendez very much a pro Corbyn voice and not impartial. 

[darrenm]

14 minutes ago, Seat68 said:

Yannis Mendez put this together right? @darrenm no doubt its another view, without question but its still Yannis Mendez very much a pro Corbyn voice and not impartial. 

I don't know sorry. DDN is obviously very pro Corbyn. They did the traingate alternative view and have repeatedly done videos with the Jewish left so yes definitely not impartial. I'm not presenting it as so, it's more that these are Jewish people who aren't platformed and deserve to at least be heard.

[bickster]

33 minutes ago, darrenm said:

I don't know sorry. DDN is obviously very pro Corbyn. They did the traingate alternative view and have repeatedly done videos with the Jewish left so yes definitely not impartial. I'm not presenting it as so, it's more that these are Jewish people who aren't platformed and deserve to at least be heard.

This idea that the Jewish Left don’t have a voice or a platform is rather silly don’t you think? You've just posted one video and said that this very channel has done plenty more. I'd never heard of DDN until tonight but I've heard and read plenty of articles / statements elsewhere. They do have a platform, I and I suspect many others, just don’t agree with them.

[darrenm]

19 minutes ago, bickster said:

This idea that the Jewish Left don’t have a voice or a platform is rather silly don’t you think? You've just posted one video and said that this very channel has done plenty more. I'd never heard of DDN until tonight but I've heard and read plenty of articles / statements elsewhere. They do have a platform, I and I suspect many others, just don’t agree with them.

I'm sorry I don't agree. Me posting this on a football forum isn't the same as having a platform on the BBC or in any papers. JVL have as much right as any other Jewish group to having their voices heard but they are clearly ignored by the media at large. DDN post on Twitter and their YouTube channel has 96,000 subscribers. 

[Chindie]

The Jewish demographics swing massively to the right. Despite there being a few high profile left wing Jews, they're a lonely bunch on the whole.

[HanoiVillan]

4 minutes ago, Chindie said:

The Jewish demographics swing massively to the right. Despite there being a few high profile left wing Jews, they're a lonely bunch on the whole.

Interestingly, this is quite a recent historical development, which really began in earnest under Miliband.

[bickster]

1 minute ago, darrenm said:

I'm sorry I don't agree. Me posting this on a football forum isn't the same as having a platform on the BBC or in any papers. JVL have as much right as any other Jewish group to having their voices heard but they are clearly ignored by the media at large. DDN post on Twitter and their YouTube channel has 96,000 subscribers. 

There is no balance as such in the media, never has been and it's unlikely to change any time soon. In fact its very arguable that many many causes / ideas / call them what you like never get any attention in the MSM and probably get even less attention than the Jewish Left but its also very arguable that now more than ever there are many alternative platforms to achieve that, which were never there in the past. That video for example has had over 22k views and was only posted today

It's a common theme on the left "The MSM is against us" (sorry for simplification), yes it's true but the left need to find ways to deal with that, it isn't going to change. Using the lack of MSM interest in their story isn't going to attract any attention outside of it's own bubble, people just shrug their shoulders and say, yep, tell us something we don't know.

[Chindie]

1 minute ago, HanoiVillan said:

Interestingly, this is quite a recent historical development, which really began in earnest under Miliband.

Remind me, was he the Jewish bloke that lead the party that was subject to massively anti-Semitic coverage that nobody cared about?

[HanoiVillan]

Urgent announcement:

 

[Davkaus]

Thanks Tone. Piss off for another 13 years, yeah?

[dAVe80]

I'm slightly obsessed with this at the moment. It's sooooo good! 

It is quite sweary, so NSFW. 

 

 

Edited December 1, 2020 by dAVe80

[bickster]

Mr Hard of thinking strikes again. Just imagine if he was still the leader of the Labour Party amd they whipped to vote against the bill tonight (because it didn't go far enough)

There would be no Lockdown, anywhere as of midnight

And I'm not disagreeing with his opinion just his reaction. The man's an idiot

[bickster]

And now all his brothers mates are seeing it as some sort of message that he's anti-lockdown...

[blandy]

10 hours ago, bickster said:

Mr Hard of thinking strikes again. Just imagine if he was still the leader of the Labour Party amd they whipped to vote against the bill tonight (because it didn't go far enough)

There would be no Lockdown, anywhere as of midnight

And I'm not disagreeing with his opinion just his reaction. The man's an idiot

To be honest, though his mates on the NEC decided he could stay in the Labour Party, Starmer didn’t let him have the whip back, so he’s not a Labour MP as such at the moment. So voting against the government as he did is back to what he made his name with. Gesture politics.

[bickster]

11 minutes ago, blandy said:

To be honest, though his mates on the NEC decided he could stay in the Labour Party, Starmer didn’t let him have the whip back, so he’s not a Labour MP as such at the moment. So voting against the government as he did is back to what he made his name with. Gesture politics.

A load of his mates joined him. The tweet above is so vaguely worded, deliberately so too imo that its almost designed to bizarrely unite the anti-lockdowners with the more needs to be done. He's saying he opposed it but not why and theres very little about what he's actually do apart from more support needed. It's just disengenous nonsense

The people supporting him in the responses are from two completely different camps and want totally different outcomes.

[chrisp65]

9 minutes ago, blandy said:

To be honest, though his mates on the NEC decided he could stay in the Labour Party, Starmer didn’t let him have the whip back, so he’s not a Labour MP as such at the moment. So voting against the government as he did is back to what he made his name with. Gesture politics.

I was going to say the same thing.

He’s back where he’s comfortable, a lone maverick free thinker for all the lone maverick free thinkers to latch on to.

Rebellion, often based on a slightly differently blinkered opinion to the slightly blinkered opinion he’s rebelling against.

He’s probably a sight happier with that, within himself. Probably felt good to be back on the old horse. Line up some fringe meetings now and it’s like the good old days. 

[HanoiVillan]

The logic of a vote against is this: we have done *literally nothing* about statutory sick pay, and it's not a secret that some people are continuing to work because they feel they can't afford to isolate. By promising to abstain rather than threatening to vote against, Labour chose to give up any leverage that came from a large Tory rebellion to get any concession on the issue. And to get concessions in the future, there needs to be a credible threat that Labour might actually vote against these regulations, so having some obvious dissention in the ranks (and to be clear, it's not either just Corbyn or just the left of the party; see Lewell-Buck, Spellar, Mearns, Foy) is useful to that end.

Just on this:

11 hours ago, bickster said:

Mr Hard of thinking strikes again. Just imagine if he was still the leader of the Labour Party amd they whipped to vote against the bill tonight (because it didn't go far enough)

There would be no Lockdown, anywhere as of midnight

While it's true that there would be no national lockdown regulations, the local government powers to enforce business closures, prohibit events etc do not expire until Jan 17th, so it would not have been a wild free-for-all.

When Andy Burnham refused to accept Manchester being placed into Tier 3 earlier in the autumn, because the financial support offered was risible, the reaction on this forum was not 'how dare he risk the health of Mancunians', even though he had a lot more direct power over restrictions in Manchester than Labour backbenchers in Westminster do over national ones. We understand that a mayor's role is to fight for the interests of his/her city with central government. The point is that Corbyn, Burgon, Begum etc see their role as the same, and are functionally doing the same thing that Burnham did, within their different roles in the political system.

To use probably a bad poker analogy - I'm a bad poker player - Corbyn tends to be someone who plays every time he has an even half-decent hand (and even often when he doesn't) and doesn't know when to fold. Starmer tends to be someone who folds all the time, and only plays if he's paid the blinds. A more effective leader would probably be somewhere between these two in how they whipped the party TBH.

[bickster]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

When Andy Burnham refused to accept Manchester being placed into Tier 3 earlier in the autumn, because the financial support offered was risible, the reaction on this forum was not 'how dare he risk the health of Mancunians', even though he had a lot more direct power over restrictions in Manchester than Labour backbenchers in Westminster do over national ones.

This is an interesting point in itself and hindsight being a great thing but the Merseyside and Manchester Lockdowns were announced within days of each other. Liverpool accepted it with a bit of a huff and Burnham did what he did. Merseyside is now in Tier 2, Manchester is in Tier 3. The rates are falling in both but one can't help but think Burnham's actions have actually kept Manchester at a higher level of lockdown for longer.

I fully understand why Burnham did what he did and his reasons for doing it, I agreed with making some sort of a stand regarding the finances. I was, however, never sure which approach was correct, his or Rotherham's. Right now it seem's Merseyside is in the better position. That may of course change in two weeks time, it's impossible to tell right now but if Manchester remain's in Tier 3 on review next week then ultimately Burnham's actions will probably have been the wrong ones for his people. He may actually have cost some of his people's lives.

 

[HanoiVillan]

7 minutes ago, bickster said:

This is an interesting point in itself and hindsight being a great thing but the Merseyside and Manchester Lockdowns were announced within days of each other. Liverpool accepted it with a bit of a huff and Burnham did what he did. Merseyside is now in Tier 2, Manchester is in Tier 3. The rates are falling in both but one can't help but think Burnham's actions have actually kept Manchester at a higher level of lockdown for longer.

I fully understand why Burnham did what he did and his reasons for doing it, I agreed with making some sort of a stand regarding the finances. I was, however, never sure which approach was correct, his or Rotherham's. Right now it seem's Merseyside is in the better position. That may of course change in two weeks time, it's impossible to tell right now but if Manchester remain's in Tier 3 on review next week then ultimately Burnham's actions will probably have been the wrong ones for his people. He may actually have cost some of his people's lives.

 

It's certainly possible, though I think it is basically impossible to disaggregate the effects of policy from more or less random chance. This is one reason I have largely stopped berating the government on here over the number of deaths at this point; I no longer feel confident in laying the blame at the door of any one approach and saying what would be Right and what would be Wrong (on most points; I think increasing statutory sick pay is a question with a clearly right answer). Once the virus was fully seeded in the country in late February/early March, I'm not sure how much could actually have been done to significantly reduce the body count. Other countries with much more visibly 'competent' governments than ours have similar per-capita death counts, after all. This is reflected in the Burnham/Rotheram debate as well. We would have to work out what, if any, was the effect on viral transmission of these briefly different approaches, whether it was based on the approach or comes down to chance, and whether and to what extent the greater financial support in Manchester offsets the worse health outcomes. I'm not sure it can be meaningfully calculated.

[chrisp65]

Wasn’t Liverpool ‘rewarded for compliance’ with the mass testing programme, whereas Manchester wasn’t?

I could be wrong, but it feels like the co-operation of Liverpool was rewarded, rather than the actual tactic (without reward) being better in some way.

If that makes any sense whatsoever.

Could the biggest difference be the mass testing? Which Manchester was not getting once they were awkward. Haven’t really followed it close enough, I’ve been trying to make sense of the utterly random figures locally here, doubling and halving on a repeat cycle with no obvious reason.