A long read on Labour

hopesoboro said:
How can you be a Corbyn supporter and even entertain this so called anti semitism baloney?!
Click to expand...
Not sure what you mean by entertain this baloney? I don't for a minute think the labour party are any more antisemitic than the population at large, so not sure what you mean
 
Same_as_before said:
Exactly, you have to win.

So basically you admit Blair has been better for the poor than Corbyn .
Click to expand...

Foolish argument this, since the same logic proves Blair was worse and more right wing than Corbyn has ever been.

Bragged about regressive trade union laws, ditched clause 4, pfi, Iraq war, increased wealth inequality, ramped up anti-poor rhetoric with policies like ASBOs... name anything as right wing as all that Corbyn achieved. You can't.
 
The other problem with the logic is it applies to any and every PM as well. If you're going to dismiss any policy proposal that doesn't get implemented due to not being in power as meaningless and only account for policies actually carried out then every PM ever has more left wing credentials than Corbyn or by extension, myself, yourself and anyone else who hasn't been a PM.

Thatcher was more left wing than Same as Before. She increased police wages. Not much but try and name a policy as left wing as that, which Same as Before implemented from the head of government. You can't.

Foolish argument, QED.
 
Laughing said:
Not sure what you mean by entertain this baloney? I don't for a minute think the labour party are any more antisemitic than the population at large, so not sure what you mean
Click to expand...
", I grant that, as there was never a clear consensus on whether she was promoting antisemitism or not."
Reads to me you're giving credence to anti-Semitism in the Labour Party not being dealt with.
 
SuperStu said:
Thatcher was more left wing than Same as Before. She increased police wages. Not much but try and name a policy as left wing as that, which Same as Before implemented from the head of government. You can't.

Foolish argument, QED.
Click to expand...

But Stu... Thatcher was left wing ... She won an election... 🤔😁
 
hopesoboro said:
", I grant that, as there was never a clear consensus on whether she was promoting antisemitism or not."
Reads to me you're giving credence to anti-Semitism in the Labour Party not being dealt with.
Click to expand...
No, I am still not getting what you are saying. Plenty of people thought she should have removed her tweet, plenty though there was nothing wrong with it. I thought she should have removed it when asked. She wouldn't so was fired from the shadow cabinet.

I am not sure how that says I buy the anti-semitism in the Labour party baloney. I think what Starmer was doing was dealing with the optics of anti-semitism in the Labour party. Fair or otherwise that view still persists among many voters and has to be addressed. It really doesn't matter whether it is true or not, it matters how people perceive the party.

Blaming Israel for a crime committed by an American, on American soil and perpetrated on an American is clearly nonsense. Was the view anti-semetic? Maybe not, but it was shades of grey and Long-Bailey was asked to remove her tweet. She refused and was ejected from the shadow cabinet. Not for the tweet, but because she refused to remove it. Starmer didn't want to give media time to it.
 
Laughing said:
No, I am still not getting what you are saying. Plenty of people thought she should have removed her tweet, plenty though there was nothing wrong with it. I thought she should have removed it when asked. She wouldn't so was fired from the shadow cabinet.

I am not sure how that says I buy the anti-semitism in the Labour party baloney. I think what Starmer was doing was dealing with the optics of anti-semitism in the Labour party. Fair or otherwise that view still persists among many voters and has to be addressed. It really doesn't matter whether it is true or not, it matters how people perceive the party.

Blaming Israel for a crime committed by an American, on American soil and perpetrated on an American is clearly nonsense. Was the view anti-semetic? Maybe not, but it was shades of grey and Long-Bailey was asked to remove her tweet. She refused and was ejected from the shadow cabinet. Not for the tweet, but because she refused to remove it. Starmer didn't want to give media time to it.
Click to expand...


Not to get embroiled in this again but seriously she actually called an actress who has done great humanitarian work a diamond whilst retweeting her interview that was in the independent.
It's not like she linked an Alex Jones video dude.🤣
 
SuperStu said:
Foolish argument this, since the same logic proves Blair was worse and more right wing than Corbyn has ever been.

Bragged about regressive trade union laws, ditched clause 4, pfi, Iraq war, increased wealth inequality, ramped up anti-poor rhetoric with policies like ASBOs... name anything as right wing as all that Corbyn achieved. You can't.
Click to expand...
You could use the same method to argue that Guisborough Town are better than Manchester United because GT have never lost a single Premiership game.
 
Alvez_48 said:
Not to get embroiled in this again but seriously she actually called an actress who has done great humanitarian work a diamond whilst retweeting her interview that was in the independent.
It's not like she linked an Alex Jones video dude.🤣
Click to expand...
Then don't Alvez, we argued this back and forth at the time as I recall. I don't suppose either of our views have changed since then.
 
Laughing said:
Then don't Alvez, we argued this back and forth at the time as I recall. I don't suppose either of our views have changed since then.
Click to expand...

I just had to point out that you literally said she blamed Israel for a crime committed by an American etc...

She factually did not do that. That is all as you were.
 
Alvez_48 said:
I just had to point out that you literally said she blamed Israel for a crime committed by an American etc...

She factually did not do that. That is all as you were.
Click to expand...
My comment was poorly worded, I was not insinuating Long-Bailey did that, she tweeted an article that said that.
 
Laughing said:
No, I am still not getting what you are saying. Plenty of people thought she should have removed her tweet, plenty though there was nothing wrong with it. I thought she should have removed it when asked. She wouldn't so was fired from the shadow cabinet.

I am not sure how that says I buy the anti-semitism in the Labour party baloney. I think what Starmer was doing was dealing with the optics of anti-semitism in the Labour party. Fair or otherwise that view still persists among many voters and has to be addressed. It really doesn't matter whether it is true or not, it matters how people perceive the party.

Blaming Israel for a crime committed by an American, on American soil and perpetrated on an American is clearly nonsense. Was the view anti-semetic? Maybe not, but it was shades of grey and Long-Bailey was asked to remove her tweet. She refused and was ejected from the shadow cabinet. Not for the tweet, but because she refused to remove it. Starmer didn't want to give media time to it.
Click to expand...
So you're saying that Long-Bailey was silly in criticising something about Israel because it would be construed as being antisemitic and so Stamer was right to get shot?
That is realpolitik!
 
hopesoboro said:
So you're saying that Long-Bailey was silly in criticising something about Israel because it would be construed as being antisemitic and so Stamer was right to get shot?
That is realpolitik!
Click to expand...
Nope that is not what I am saying. I am saying that on the face of it, Long-Bailey meant no harm, however once it was pointed out that the tweet could be used as an antisemitic stick to beat the Labour party with, she was asked to remove it. She refused and was removed from the shadow cabinet for that. In my opinion the correct decision. At the time this happened there were enough people who thought Starmer was right to suggest that leaving her in post would have created problems for the party, not withstanding her refusal to the party leader, which in itself is damaging.

If you want to knock Starmer, try the proposed hush payments and subsequent apology to the Panorama "whistle blowers". That was clearly a step way too far. I would have far rather gone to court on that issue and the party finances be damned. It will be interesting to see what Starmer does about ejecting Corbyn from the party, than re-hash an argument we are not going to agree on.
 
Still proving he was better for the poor than Corbyn.

You seem to be arguing it's better to lose an argument on principle than win it, I think the opposite.

My old fella made Corbyn look like a Thatcherite my mum was far to the left of dad. The one thing he said was far too many people have died because of their principles. We had decades of Tory rule, as we have now, you need to stuff your principles.
 
Last edited:
Same_as_before said:
Still proving he was better for the poor than Corbyn.

You seem to be arguing it's better to lose an argument on principle than win it, I think the opposite.

My old fella made Corbyn look like a Thatcherite my mum was far to the left of dad. The one thing he said was far too many people have died because of their principles. We had decades of Tory rule, as we have now, you need to stuff your principles.
Click to expand...

So what you're actually saying is it's better to lose principles and win than win an argument, keep principles and lose 😁
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top